Are insights from Indigenous health shaping a paradigm shift in health promotion praxis in Australia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health promotion really is at a cross-road. Traditionally guided by the Ottawa Charter, it has been thought of as principle-guided actions, processes and technique, as well as outcomes or results. Health promotion has been characterised by its products and some even call it theory. In Australia, public funding for health promotion has, for many years, shaped its practice into behaviour change interventions. However, governments around the country are reconsidering their investments, evidenced by ideologically motivated policy shifts and associated substantial funding cuts. Recently, themes of empowerment, community control and community agency have emerged as new directions for future health promotion praxis and reports of activism-based approaches that seek to mobilise community energies around sexual health inequity have started to appear in the literature. Noting parallel developments in the social determinants and social change discourses, this paper posits that cutting edge health promotion efforts by Indigenous communities in Australia are shaping a new approach with potentially global application.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".