Health promotion and health systems: some unfinished business
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the five action domains in the Ottawa Charter was Reorienting Health Services. In this paper, we reflect on why progress in this domain has been somewhat lethargic, particularly compared with some of the other action domains, and why now it is important to renew our commitment to this domain. Reorienting health services has been largely overlooked and opportunities missed, although good exceptions do exist. The occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Ottawa Charter represents an important opportunity for health promotion to: (i) renew its active voice in current policy debate and action and (ii) enhance achievements made to date by improving our efforts to advocate, enable and mediate for the reorientation of health services and systems. We outline six steps to reactivate and invest more in this action domain so as to be in a better position to promote health equitably and sustainably in today's fast changing world. Though our experience is mainly based in the European context, we hope that our reflections will be of some value to countries outside of this region.
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 | 0.029 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".