What remains for the future: strengthening community actions to become an integral part of health promotion practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To mark the 25th anniversary of the Ottawa Charter, this paper will discuss what remains to be achieved in strengthening community actions as an integral part of health promotion practice. To do this, the paper discusses four key elements for the future of health promotion programmes: (1) engage communities to share priorities; (2) build community capacity; (3) mechanisms for flexible and transparent funding; and (4) being creative in order to expand or replicate successful local initiatives. The paper uses a number of international case study examples of how these key elements can be achieved in health promotion programmes. A major challenge for the future is how health promotion agencies can develop and maintain the trust of communities, especially socially marginalized communities in society. The paper concludes by identifying a number of short and longer term challenges to achieve these goals and offers a way forward for a brighter future direction of health promotion practice.
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 | 0.098 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.044 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".