MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088427645 · doi:10.1093/heapro/dar085

Enduring principles in a fast-changing world

2011· editorial· en· W2088427645 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zsuzsanna Jakab, Gauden Galea

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2011
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicComparative and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are living in a different world, indeed a different planet, from the one in which ‘the Ottawa Conference’ was held, a conference co-hosted by the World Health Organization, through its Regional Office for Europe. The quarter century since then has been marked by a series of qualitative changes, none of which could have been foreseen in 1986. The world's population has now almost reached seven billion, from the five billion alive at the time of the Conference. These people are ageing at such a rate that soon, for the first time in human history, there will be more people aged over 65 than there are aged below 5. The world's climate is now known to be changing, and the change is attributable to human agency. There are now more people living in cities than in rural areas. In Europe, the early nineties were marked by a dramatic social and economic upheaval with the emergence of new countries and a transition that in many cases was marked by unrest and deep impacts on public health. In recent years, a global economic crisis has emerged, is far from being resolved and is threatening households, health systems and the very viability of countries. ‘The New Public Health’, envisaged in the title of the landmark Ottawa conference, has indeed emerged in many ways that were then unanticipated. The problems of poverty, infectious disease, hunger, maternal mortality and child survival, considered then the problems of the ‘old’ public health, have not disappeared at all and have instead proved remarkably resilient. Indeed, the epidemic of HIV/AIDS acquired global political prominence within a year of the conference (Shilts, 2000), followed by a host of emergent and re-emergent infections. At the same time, the burden of chronic, non-communicable diseases has come to the fore as the predominant public health challenge, even in lower income countries, and it is now recognized that these diseases are linked with poverty and pose a threat to human development (WHO, 2010; United Nations, 2011). The health promotion movement, born 25 years ago, has grown stronger in the face of these challenges. The Ottawa Charter, celebrated here, is the marker of the birth of that movement. Other papers in this journal examine the relevance and impact of the Charter today. At the same time, it is appropriate to also mark here a lesser-known document that emerged in 1984 from a meeting held in the WHO Regional Office for Europe, affectionately called ‘the yellow document’ in reference to the colour of the paper it was first printed on. This short paper, ‘A discussion document on the concept and principles of health promotion’ (Catford, 1986), defined that health promotion and succinctly laid down the skeleton of what would evolve as the Ottawa Charter. The yellow document reads today as a timely reminder of the foundations of the movement and continues to provide a roadmap for future evolution of the field. While the context has changed beyond recognition, the principles of health promotion, recorded at the time, provide a solid foundation for action even today. Health promotion continues to call upon practitioners and public health advocates to remain focused on the determinants of health, to work to reduce inequalities and, based on a logic founded on ‘the inextricable link between people and their environment’, to adopt a ‘socio-ecological approach to health’. It is this logic and these principles that are today driving the development of Health 2020, an overarching health policy for the Region with the concept, principles and values of health promotion at its core (WHO, 2011a). This policy, still in the process of drafting at the time of writing, starts with a broad vision for health in the European Region: … where all people are enabled and supported in achieving their full health potential and wellbeing, and in which countries, individually and jointly, work towards reducing inequalities in health within the Region and beyond. The policy has been in development for over a year and will be proposed to the Regional Committee in 2012. In its current form, the document is founded on a positive definition of health and wellbeing, emphasizes citizen participation, proposes a whole-of-society and a whole-of-government approach to health, addresses the structural, environmental and behavioural determinants of health and defines the key role of public health and health systems based on primary health care. A number of reviews and frameworks are feeding into this policy: a review of social determinants of health in Europe (WHO, 2011b), a formal study of health governance (Kickbusch and Gleicher, 2011) and an action framework for public health (WHO, 2011c). The development of Health 2020 is a practical illustration of the evolution and application of health promotion to policy making in one WHO region. The broad social drivers described above similarly challenge health policy makers across the globe. It is proposed that similar application of the concept and principles of health promotion is appropriate elsewhere. While the changes of the past decades have transformed public health, the concept, principles and the Charter of health promotion have endured. They will remain our guide in the next quarter century.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.018
Scholarly communication0.0140.010
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0120.032
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion InternationalSame topicComparative and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207