Pragmatic health promotion in a globalised world: reflections on Bangkok from the next generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary was commissioned from J. Hope Corbin by the IUHPE in order to share her personal experience as a rapporteur and particpant in the 6th WHO Global Conference on Health Promotion held in Bangkok, Thailand, in August 2005. Her contribution serves as an example of how the IUHPE is committed to continue supporting a dialogue on the Bangkok Charter and its implementation through its electronic journal the Reviews of Health Promotion & Education Online which has provided a forum for IUHPE members to share their thoughts and views in the series: From Ottawa 1986 to Vancouver 2007, Should the Ottawa Charter be revisited? This series will be prolonged all the way up to the IUHPE's next world conference in Vancouver where the issues taken up by the various declarations of global WHO conferences, notably the Ottawa one in 1986, will be at the core of its programme (see http://www.iuhpeconference.org/). We are thus looking forward to a strong ongoing debate until then, and all IUHPE members are invited to submit their own paper on this subject for consideration and posting on RHP&EO (www.rhpeo.org)!
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 | 0.042 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".