Ottawa 25 years on: a more radical agenda for health equity is still required
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article revisits our 1995 assessment of the international health promotion agenda. Then we concluded that a more radical agenda for change was required in which responses were both technically sound and infused with an appreciation of the imperative for a change in politics and power. We conclude that this message is even more relevant in 2011 in an era when the continuing rise of transnational corporations (TNCs) poses a major threat to achieving improved and more equitable health. We support and illustrate this claim through the example of food and agriculture TNCs where the combination of producer subsidies, global trade liberalization and strengthened property rights has given increasing power to the corporate food industry and undermined national food security in many countries. We argue that a Health in All Policies approach should be used to monitor and enforce TNC accountability for health. Part of this process should include the use of a form of health impact assessment and health equity impact assessment on their activities. Civil society groups such as the People's Health Movement have a central role to play in monitoring the impacts of TNCs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.005 |
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".