Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Global Working Group on Health Promotion Research (GWG HPR) of the International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE) presents a collection of four articles illustrating innovative avenues for health promotion research. This commentary synthesizes the contributions of these articles while attempting to define the contours of research in health promotion. We propose that innovation in research involves the adoption of a reflexive approach wherein consideration of context plays different roles. The reflexive process consists of questioning what is taken for granted in the conceptualization and operationalization of research. It involves linking research findings and its theoretical foundations to characteristics and goals of the field and observed realities, while orienting reflection on specific objects. The reflexive nature of the research activity is of paramount importance for innovation in health promotion. With the publication of this series, the GWG HPR wishes to strengthen health promotion research capacity at the global level and reaffirm health promotion as a specific research domain.
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.
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 | 0.020 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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 it