Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twenty years have passed since the philosophy and principals were formulated in the Ottawa Charter for health promotion. A critical reflection of the content and success of the Ottawa Charter was published before the IUHPE World Conference in Vancover in June 2007. This paper contextualizes and discusses Salutogenesis and Antonovsky in the development of health promotion practice and research and, further, relates the salutogenic concept Sense of Coherence (SOC) to the Ottawa Charter. An overview of the development of health promotion and the salutogenic theory of health is presented. In addition, this is illustrated in a new way using the metaphors of 'health in the river of life' and 'SOC in a life course perspective'. Health promotion, including the Ottawa charter, lacks a clear theoretical foundation. The results of a systematic review of salutogenic research are used to demonstrate how the salutogenic framework could support the philosophical and practical intentions of the OC. The salutogenic model contributes to the maintenance and development of health and quality of life (QoL), i.e. the process and outcome of the principles of the OC. The metaphor of the river and the life cycle are new ways of demonstrating the paradigm shift provided by the Salutogenesis and health promotion in relation to public health and medicine. The salutogenic theory is an important contribution to the theory base of health promotion research and practice.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".