Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Bangkok Charter for Health Promotion in a Globalized World has sparked lively dialogue. Welcomed by some as a Charter current to the times, there are others who see it as an unneeded and therefore unwelcome challenger to the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Intended or not, the Bangkok Charter seems to signal a shift in discourse, from a social-ecological approach and an emphasis on individual and community capacity-building and empowerment, to an investment approach and an emphasis on globalization, macro-level factors and policy. Positively, the Bangkok Charter proclaims to build on Ottawa, and no one suggests it is meant to replace the Ottawa Charter outright. In concert with that, the dialogue today is not so much about the ascendancy of the one Charter over the other, but about the degree to which the Bangkok Charter remains true to the ethic of the Ottawa Charter. It is welcome that the Ottawa and Bangkok Charters are the subject of brisk dialogue about strategy and tactics in a rapidly changing world, and about the foundational values of health promotion. Regarding the latter, we have unfinished work in constructing an ethic for health promotion, and the present dialogue may inspire us to progress. Though we have the cornerstone of an ethic for health promotion, in the Ottawa Charter and in other principled documents that have followed, we have yet to build sufficiently on the cornerstone; an ethic for practice has yet to be codified, and the same is true for research. Health promotion journals, conferences and organizations can and should do more to facilitate dialogue on ethics in health promotion, and the Internet provides the means for all to participate actively.
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 | 0.143 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.116 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.042 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.045 | 0.058 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".