Toward International Collaboration on Credentialing in Health Promotion and Health Education: The Galway Consensus Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interest in competencies, standards, and quality assurance in the professional preparation of public health professionals whose work involves health promotion and health education dates back several decades. In Australia, Europe, and North America, where the interest in credentialing has gained momentum, there have been rapidly evolving efforts to codify competencies and standards of practice as well as the processes by which quality and accountability can be ensured in academic professional preparation programs. The Galway Consensus Conference was conceived as a first step in an effort to explore the development of an international consensus regarding the core competencies of health education specialists and professionals in health promotion and the commonalities and differences in establishing uniform standards for the accreditation of academic professional preparation programs around the world. This article describes the purposes, objectives, and process of the Galway Consensus Conference and the background to the meeting that was convened.
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 | 0.189 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.040 |
| 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".