The concept of ‘‘equity’’ in health-promotion articles by Nordic authors - A matter of some confusion and misconception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This paper focuses on equity in health, one of the key principles of the Ottawa Charter. It aims at analysing and discussing how the concept was defined, applied, and integrated in health-promotion articles by authors with a Nordic affiliation. METHODS: Abstracts were first identified by the search word ''health promotion'' as a key word. The search was limited to 1986-2008 and abstracts written in English by authors with a Nordic affiliation. Abstracts/articles for the present study were subsequently selected from these abstracts using the search word ''equity'' and analysed by quantitative and qualitative content analysis. FINDINGS: A majority of the 18 articles in the study did not include any proper definition of the term ''equity in health''. Most articles dealt with health in general or ''Health for All'' aspects and did not focus on specific strategies for vulnerable individuals or groups. The theoretical papers had a clear focus on equity aspects even though the concept of equity was sometimes included in an implicit way. In contrast, most papers reporting empirical studies did not specifically target equity aspects. Instead, the analysis gave the impression that many authors used the term ''equity'' synonymously with ''equality in health''. CONCLUSIONS: The findings may indicate that the concept of ''equity in health'' has been attenuated or even forgotten by Nordic health-promotion researchers and needs to be re-established as a strong concern within health promotion.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".