Evaluation of health promotion effectiveness: a political debate and/or a technical exercise?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article summarizes the points of view of professionals from different nationalities, working in diverse organizations and dealing with concepts and activities related to health promotion effectiveness evaluation. This collection of views came from a panel presentation and dialogue held during the First Brazilian Seminar on Effectiveness in Health Promotion. Four professionals working in evaluation and health promotion--two from the United States, one from French Canada and another representing an international professional organization--facilitated by one Brazilian and one Puerto Rican moderator, had an informal dialogue with the audience. Four questions about how these professionals perceive evaluation in health promotion were asked to initiate the dialogue. The panelists deliberated five aspects of health promotion evaluation, asking: "how", "how much", "what for", "with whom" and "why". Professionals working in developing countries (in this case, Brazil) and those dealing with indigenous communities (in developed countries) tended to put more emphasis on "what for?", "with whom?" and "why?" regarding initiatives to evaluate effectiveness of health promotion. Questions associated with "how?" and "how much?" were more often mentioned by professionals working for international or governmental agencies. A 90-minute dialogue among panelists with a clearly Brazilian bias, was not sufficient to produce conclusions on the predominant character of international evaluation efforts of effectiveness. Nevertheless, this debate framed the five aspects of evaluation into a value perspective. The questions, "what for?", "with whom?", "why?", "how?" and "how much?" are linked to a political or technical presumptions that could be orchestrated in evaluations of health promotion effectiveness.
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 | 0.251 | 0.292 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.046 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".