La Charte d’Ottawa rédigée en 2009? un 6 <sup>ème</sup> axe en faveur de la recherche
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plus de deux décennies se sont écoulées depuis la rédaction de la Charte d’Ottawa. Des étudiants de l’Université de Montréal ont participé à un forum de discussion de l’Union Internationale de Promotion de la Santé et d’Éducation pour la Santé (UIPES) sur Views of Health Promotion Online (VHPO) pour échanger sur « Que serait le contenu de la Charte d’Ottawa si elle avait été rédigée en 2009 ? ». Les participants ont souligné la nécessité de promouvoir la Charte d’Ottawa, de renforcer son plaidoyer concernant les bénéfices de la promotion de la santé, d’aller au-delà des principes théoriques, de préconiser la synergie entre les axes, et d’encourager la recherche en promotion de la santé, notamment en y consacrant un sixième axe. Ces échanges ont permis de voir comment un groupe de la génération actuelle d’étudiants perçoit l’adaptation et la pertinence de la Charte d’Ottawa.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".