Health promotion, the Ottawa Charter and 'developing personal skills': a compact history of 25 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The challenge of understanding what has happened in the 25 years since the Ottawa Charter would be difficult enough if there had been no Charter. However, our task is to interpret to what extent the Charter has influenced the world of health promotion as it is today. The task here is to consider what has happened regarding one action component of the Charter, notably developing personal skills. In taking only one of the five components, we are deconstructing the holistic approach that was implied in the Ottawa Charter and it is somewhat strange to isolate this action area from the others, and perhaps outside the 'spirit' of the Charter. Nonetheless, the approach will be to interpret this area broadly while still being restrictive and not venturing into discussions of the other action areas except where the connection is so strong that to isolate personal skills from the other area would be unproductive. The Ottawa Charter brought to the table, for health promotion and education, a growing recognition that health was a broad concept in its own right. It made explicit that ties to disease approaches were highly related to health education and promotion, but that health promotion had to go well beyond a narrow interpretation of the field. It recognized that active participation by people, to directly affect their health and the broader determinants of it, was paramount.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".