Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of health promotion's major contributions has been its discursive challenge to biomedical and even behavioural models of health and illness. The concept of social determinants of health is now widely accepted by health authorities in many parts of the world. When health promoters focus on these determinants, however, it is often at local or national scales. Contemporary globalisation demands a more critical appraisal of how many health problems have become inherently global in cause and consequence. In making such an appraisal, it is helpful to consider how global health is presently being framed to determine which arguments are most likely to be health-promoting for the greatest number. This article reviews five such frames: health as security, as development, as global public good, as commodity, and as human right. Most offer some useful argumentation to health promotion, although the rights-based frame, when supported by ethical reasoning (a moral voice), is the most consistent with health promotion's more empowering roots.
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 | 0.083 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.139 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.064 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; 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".