Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explores the origins of public health in the UK, documenting the political influences which led to the passing of the first public health Act in England and Wales in 1848. Although heralded as a turning point in the recognition of the role of poverty and environment in determining health status, the initial permissive public health act had to be strengthened by compulsory legislation and the development of a public health infrastructure which then became dominated by biomedical perspectives. The chapter will outline the more recent development of the ‘new public health’ and track the emergence of health promotion from the Ottawa Charter (WHO, 1986) to the Bangkok Charter (WHO, 2005). In exploring definitions of health promotion from the USA, Canada, and the UK, it will demonstrate the contested nature of health promotion, the divergence in understandings of health promotion and the relationship of health promotion to the ‘new public health’. Charting the renaissance of public health in the UK from 1988 to the present, the chapter looks at the development of modern multidisciplinary public health. The publication of UK public health strategies heralded a resurgence in public health, changes in the Faculty of Public Health Medicine to become the Faculty of Public Health and the development of competencies for public health. The influence of reports such as the Wanless Reports is explored and the relationship of health promotion to public health as part of multidisciplinary public health is examined. The conflicts and tensions that have emerged as a result of differences between policy and practice are interrogated as is the role that politics has played in developing public health in primary care organisations, local authorities and voluntary organisations.
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 | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.118 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".