Development of Quality of Life by Application of the Sufficiency Economy and Ottawa Charter: A Case Study at Moo 5, Kukot Sub-district, Lamlukka District, Pratumtani Province
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This participatory action research was aimed to assess quality of life, identify factors affecting the quality of life, and determine the means for improving quality of life in the community by applying Sufficiency Economy principles and Ottawa Charter. Methods: step 1, brainstorming sessions with three focus group discussions among community leaders and interested people, mind mapping technique for information analysis and problem-solution prioritization; step 2, collaboration among the community leaders and interested people for the development of plans and project write-ups; step 3, implementation and; step 4: post-project evaluation. Results: we found that the majority of the community had good quality of life due to the fact that the leader and the core members were strong, that the community had received many awards, that the community oriented around the community committee, and that the community was cooperative. Results in regards to application of Sufficient Economy and Ottawa Charter showed that the community developed a health care knowledge sharing project. They believed that knowledge created logical reason, improved personal skills, prevented illnesses, and promoted healthy community. The project attracted 78 participants and received good attention. Through this, the community leaders had experienced to perform community analysis and project development and management. Suggestion: The community leaders should continue to develop other projects to sustain the quality of life of the community. The government and private sector should increase dissemination of information about Sufficiency Economy and health promotion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".