Learning lessons from past mistakes: how can Health in All Policies fulfil its promises?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ottawa Charter has exerted a great deal of influence on the public health debate and on health promotion practices over the last 25 years. The Charter shifted the main focus from individual risk behaviours to social determinants of health, and introduced innovative strategies such as participatory processes and empowerment of communities. This new public health era is based, essentially, on the introduction of health promotion to increase people's opportunities to make healthy choices. Building healthy public policies (HPP) is a core area, even an overriding concern for health promotion, as it seeks to put health onto the agenda of policy-makers across different sectors, to improve the conditions under which people live. HPP is concerned with equity, and has, by its nature, an intersectoral focus with an explicit interest in the impacts of all policies on the health of the population. It represents a reaction against the individualistic and victim-blaming approach of curative medicine and the excessive focus previously placed on health education.
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 | 0.054 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.047 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".