MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100224982 · doi:10.1177/10253823070140020901x

Did the Ottawa Charter play a role in the push to assess the effectiveness of health promotion?

2007· article· en· W2100224982 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePromotion & Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterHealth promotionPromotion (chess)Public relationsMedicinePolitical scienceContemplationMedical educationNursingPublic healthLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.407 · 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