The salutogenic approach to the making of HiAP/healthy public policy: illustrated by a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty years have passed since the central document of health promotion, the Ottawa Charter, was constituted. Health was seen as the process enabling individuals and communities to increase control over their determinants of health, thereby improving their health and enabling an active and productive life, that is, a good quality of life. One main strategy was the making of a healthy public policy. At the same time Aaron Antonovsky developed the salutogenic theory and its core concepts the sense of coherence and the generalized resistance resources. This paper integrates Antonovsky's salutogenic theory and a salutogenic model of quality of life into the core principles of the Ottawa Charter and exemplifies how to make healthy public policy the salutogenic way. A process-oriented coherent health promotion research model integrating an ecological, a salutogenic and a resilient approach is shown. The objective of this theoretical model is to bring together the whole spectrum of risk factors, protective factors and promotion factors in one model. Further, individual, group and society level are considered. The model suggested aims to contribute to the creation of sense of coherence. This is exemplified in practice in a case study of a Nation, that is, on a national level. The case study of the "Nation" is partly masked. The principles behind these processes are explained in detail while the case study of the "Nation" only includes parts of the process explaining some core issues. The overall aim of this paper is to stimulate health promotion activities along the lines presented and invite the readers to comment and continue the discussion.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".