Bibliographic record
Abstract
When designing a comprehensive strategy for mental health promotion, as that called for in the European WHO Action Plan for Mental Health (WHO, 2005), one possible effective framework for such a strategy is to take a settings approach. The Ottawa Charter (WHO, 1986) for health promotion emphasises a settings-based approach in creating supportive environments for health, as reflected in the statement that 'health is created and lived by people within the settings of their everyday life; where they learn, work, play and love..'. An overview of effective mental health promotion programmes across different settings has been presented by Jané-Llopis and colleagues (Jané-Llopis, Barry, Hosman and Patel, 2005) in this volume, and in other recent reviews (WHO, 2004a; WHO, 2004b). The following section describes why the home, the school, the workplace and the community are four crucial settings for intervention, and describes a set of health and mental health determinants that are addressed through interventions in these settings.
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 | 0.028 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".