Una promoción de la salud pragmática en un mundo globalizado: reflexiones de la generación joven en torno a Bangkok
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este comentario ha sido redactado por petición de la UIPES a J. Hope Corbin con el fin de compartir su experiencia personal como relatora y participante de la VI Conferencia mundial de Promoción de la Salud celebrada en Bangkok, Tailandia, en Agosto de 2005. Su contribución sirve como ejemplo de cómo la UIPES se compromete a un continuo apoyo del dialogo sobre la Carta de Bangkok y su implementación a través de la revista electrónica Reviews for Health Promotion and Education On-line (RHP&EO) que proporciona un foro de discusión a los miembros de la UIPES para compartir sus ideas en la serie titulada: De Ottawa 1986 a Vancouver 2007, Deberíamos revisar la Carta de Ottawa? Esta serie continuará hasta la próxima Conferencia mundial de la UIPES en Vancouver donde se retomarán las diversas declaraciones que han resultado de las conferencias de la OMS, en especial la Carta de Ottawa de 1986 (véase http://www.iuhpeconference.org). Esperamos que este debate continúe hasta Vancouver e invitamos a todos los miembros de la UIPES a presentar sus opiniones para su consideración a ser publicadas en RHP&EO.
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 | 0.053 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".