The way forward: experiences of health promotion development in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A landmark in health promotion in Thailand came in 2001 with the launching of the Universal Health Coverage Scheme at the cost of approximately USD 2 billion a year. Another important event was the establishment of the Thai Health Promotion Foundation (ThaiHealth) as a health promotion funding mechanism that draws upon a 2 percent surcharge levied on alcohol and tobacco excise tax, approximately USD 50-60 million a year. The most significant institutional development is the promulgation of the National Health Act in 2007. The Act embraces the principle of human rights and key principles of the Ottawa Charter in 2005. It is a result of five years of extensive public dialogues on important health issues that enhanced public awareness and nation wide networking on health promotion. ThaiHealth regards itself as a catalyst for health promotion. The organisation collaborates with all sectors of the society, from the national to the grassroots level, and is the most notable organisation for health promotion in Thailand. ThaiHealth funds programs on health risks/issues such as alcohol, tobacco, accidents, exercise, as well as area or setting based programs, for example, school, work place, community, and programs that target specific population groups such as the youth, the elderly, Muslim community. The open grants program invites proposals from all kinds of organizations/groups interested in launching health promotion initiatives. The endeavour has started to bear fruit. Smoking and alcohol consumption rates have dropped and more people have become health conscious and do more exercise. However, much remains to be done as some population groups especially the youth have become susceptible to various kinds of health risks. This remarkable start must be sustained and reinforced by the continuation and expansion of knowledge generation and dissemination, relentless policy advocacy and creative public campaign, with a strong health promotion network as the most critical success factor.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".