Representations of preconditions for and determinants of health in the Dutch press
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a mass medium which provides information to the public about both the determinants of health and the conditioning of those determinants through professional or civic means, the press is an important object of study for health promoters, who regularly seek to build upon and influence public understandings regarding the etiology of health. This article investigates whether the factors which the Dutch press portray as determining or allowing for health are congruent with the central tenets of health promotion as these are detailed in the WHO's 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion and 1997 Jakarta Declaration. A content analysis was conducted on 600 randomly selected health-related articles appearing in the five Dutch newspapers with the largest average daily circulation over 8 weeks. Two coders ascribed values to each of the 600 articles for seven content variables, including determinant theme of article, authority identifying determinant theme, means and agent of determinant conditioning, breadth of population affected, and mediating populational attributes. Two form variables, text and graphic area, were also assessed by the coders. Findings indicate that though there are some reasons to be encouraged, representations of the determinants of health in the Dutch press are largely incompatible with the etiological assumptions of health promotion. Health promoters, it is asserted, must continue to engage the press in order to take advantage of opportunities and gaps in health etiological coverage.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".