Did the Ottawa Charter play a role in the push to assess the effectiveness of health promotion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ottawa Charter contains no explicit mention of the role evidence should play in supporting the development of health promotion, nor is there a discussion on the available methods or recommendations for assessing the effectiveness of health promotion programs and policies. The authors of this paper suggest evidence and effectiveness were not prioritized in the Ottawa Charter, and consequently, attracted little attention during the early development of health promotion practice. This paper reflects upon the various implications of a push to assess the effectiveness of health promotion well after the release of the Ottawa Charter; examines progress in this area since the Ottawa Charter; and challenges the reader to continue on in their own contemplation of remaining challenges ahead, in preparation for the 19th IUHPE World Conference, of which "assessing health promotion effectiveness" is one of the key themes.
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 | 0.372 | 0.549 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.058 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".