Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This paper reviews the main principles and values underlying health promotion and reflects upon recent health promotion efforts in Korea. Methods: The essay approaches these issues through the framework of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (WHO, 1986) and other related (WHO) documents. The Ottawa Charter has been an important basis for health promotion worldwide over the last three decades since 1986. Emphasizing the instrumental value of health and the prerequisites for health, it provides the definition of health promotion and elaborates the strategies for health promotion as well as the main health promotion actions. Results: Beyond the values of health as both a fundamental human right and a resource for everyday life, the values and principles related to health promotion shown in WHO documents and other literature include holism, social justice and equity, public and community participation, autonomy, empowerment, socioecological approaches to health, sustainability, intersectoral collaboration, partnership-building, responsibility for health, and so on. Conclusions: Reflecting, subjectively, on health promotion efforts in Korea, some values, including holism in terms of target population, equity, public and community participation, empowerment, and socio-ecological approaches have been realized to some extent, while other values like intersectoral collaboration and partnership have not been considered sincerely in public efforts relating to health promotion. Therefore, future health promotion efforts in Korea should concentrate on incorporating these critical values and principles-based approaches into health promotion activities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".