Health promotion and climate change: exploring the core competencies required for action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change poses serious threats to human health and well-being. It exacerbates existing health inequities, impacts on the social determinants of health and disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. In the Australian region these include remote Aboriginal communities, Pacific Island countries and people with low incomes. Given health promotion's remit to protect and promote health, it should be well placed to respond to emerging climate-related health challenges. Yet, to date, there has been little evidence to demonstrate this. This paper draws on the findings of a qualitative study conducted in Victoria, Australia to highlight that; while there is clearly a role for health promotion in climate change mitigation and adaptation at the national and international levels, there is also a need for the engagement of health promoters at the community level. This raises several key issues for health promotion practice. To be better prepared to respond to climate change, health promotion practitioners first need to re-engage with the central tenets of the Ottawa Charter, namely the interconnectedness of humans and the natural environment and, secondly, the need to adopt ideas and frameworks from the sustainability field. The findings also open up a discussion for paradigmatic shifts in health promotion thinking and acting in the context of climate change.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".