Engaging with nature to promote health: bridging research silos to examine the evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there is considerable research on environmental contamination and degradation, there is equally credible evidence on the healthful qualities of the environment. Being in and caring for nature can be health promoting for individuals, families, communities, ecosystems and the planet. In this paper, we use a conceptual model for nature-based health promotion and a socio-ecological model of health promotion to guide the scope, organization and critique of relevant literature on nature-based health promotion in several fields and generate recommendations for practice, policy and research. We conclude that participatory community-based research is needed to build local knowledge and create systemic change in practice and policy to support healthy living for people and the planet.
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 | 0.223 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".