The historical origins of the basic concepts of health promotion and education: the role of ancient Greek philosophy and medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is commonly accepted that the basic concepts of 'Health Promotion' have been developed in the last two decades, they have their roots in ancient civilizations and in particular in Greek antiquity. As evident from medical and philosophical documents of the sixth to fourth centuries B.C., the ancient Greeks were the first to break with the supernatural conceptions of health and disease that had so far dominated human societies. The ancient Greeks developed the physiocratic school of thought, realizing that maintaining good health and fighting illness depend on natural causes and that health and disease cannot be dissociated from particular physical and social environments nor from human behavior. In this context, they defined health as a state of dynamic equilibrium between the internal and the external environment, they took under consideration the physical and social determinants of health, they empowered individuals and communities through new democratic and participatory institutions, they gave emphasis in health education and skill development, they recognized the importance of supportive environments and of healthy public policy and they re-oriented medicine toward a more naturalistic and humanistic perspective. The aim of the present study is to highlight such core concepts from these early times that helped establishing the foundations for health promotion and education in the modern era according to the Ottawa Charter.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".