Transforming Ottawa Charter health promotion concepts into Swedish public health policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Swedish public health policy clearly illustrates how the concept of the Ottawa Charter for health promotion can be utilized at a national level. The impact has been more implicit than explicit. Public health has a long history in Sweden and much of the present and future is, and will be, linked to traditional values and structures. International input, however, has been essential to prompt new approaches and change. Health inequalities remain the major shortcoming. The Swedish system offers universal access to healthcare in a decentralized system. Still, primary healthcare, and the health services as a whole have not yet sufficiently embraced the idea of health promotion. Political attention to modern public health at the Prime Minister level was established in late 1980s. Since, continuous initiatives in terms of organization, infrastructure and funding have taken place. With regard to funding, a vast majority of the resources allocated to health promotion will be found outside the health sector. An interesting observation is that the Swedish public health policy with its 11 objective domains remains the same, also after a change of government. Future challenges include maintaining and developing an intersectoral mechanism for implementation, allocating more resources for intervention research to strengthen knowledge-based health promotion, and developing tools for coping better with the challenges of globalisation identified in the Bangkok Charter.
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 | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".