The political economy of health promotion: part 2, national provision of the prerequisites of health†
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Governmental authorities of wealthy developed nations differ in their professed commitments and activity related to the provision of the prerequisites of health through public policy action. Part 1 of this article showed how nations identified as social democratic or liberal welfare states were those where such commitments are present. Nations identified as conservative or Latin welfare states were less likely to express such commitments. However, the political economy literature suggests that despite their expressed commitments to provision of the prerequisites of health, liberal welfare states fare rather poorly in implementing these commitments. The opposite is seen for conservative welfare states. Social democratic welfare states show both commitments and public policy consistent with this objective. Part 2 of this article documents the extent to which public policy activity that provides the prerequisites of health through public policy action differs among varying welfare state regimes. Despite extensive rhetoric concerning the prerequisites of health, nations identified as liberal welfare states do a rather poor job of meeting these goals and show evidence of adverse health outcomes. In contrast, social democratic welfare states fare better in providing such prerequisites--consistent with their rhetorical statements--with better health outcomes. Interestingly, conservative--and to a lesser extent Latin--nations fare well in providing the prerequisites of health despite their lack of explicit commitment to such concepts. Findings suggest that health promoters have to concern themselves with the broad strokes of public policymaking whether or not these policy activities are identified as health promotion activities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".