Patrimonio de salud: ¿son posibles las políticas salutogénicas?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No hay nada mas práctico que una buena Teoría Llevamos 25 años desde la reunión de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) en Ottawa haciendo promoción de la salud sin una verdadera teoría detrás, lo que ha deter minado un vacío notable de conocimiento científico, mucha retórica prescriptiva, acciones muy dispares, en su mayoría de carácter coercitivo y basadas en factores de riesgo, "estilodevidismo", y con un conflicto ético notable de culpabilización de las victi mas y de legitimidad para actuar aún no resuelto 1 .Con razón, a la promoción de la salud le han llovido muchas críticas.Su falta de evidencia científica tiene como principal consecuencia la falta de verdaderas políticas de promoción de la salud.Esta situación des crita podría empezar a solucionarse quizás con un uso más extensivo de las ideas de Aaron Antonovsky, planteando hipótesis relevantes
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".