Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors of the Ottawa Charter selected the words enable, mediate and advocate to describe the core activities in what was, in 1986, the new Public Health. This article considers these concepts and the values and ideas upon which they were based. We discuss their relevance in the current context within which health promotion is being conducted, and discuss the implications of changes in the health agenda, media and globalization for practice. We consider developments within health promotion since 1986: its central role in policy rhetoric, the increasing understanding of complexities and the interlinkage with many other societal processes. So the three core activities are reviewed: they still fit well with the main health promotion challenges, but should be refreshed by new ideas and values. As the role of health promotion in the political arena has grown we have become part of the policy establishment and that is a mixed blessing. Making way for community advocates is now our challenge. Enabling requires greater sensitivity to power relations involved and an understanding of the role of health literacy. Mediating keeps its central role as it bridges vital interests of parties. We conclude that these core concepts in the Ottawa Charter need no serious revision. There are, however, lessons from the last 25 years that point to ways to address present and future challenges with greater sensitivity and effectiveness. We invite the next generation to avoid canonizing this text: as is true of every heritage, the heirs must decide on its use.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".