Human Rights Provide Justification for the Health in All Policies Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 10-14 June, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health will host the 8th Global Conference on Health Promotion in Helsinki, Finland. The Global Conference will highlight Health in All Policies (HiAP), an approach that has evolved over the past quarter century – arising out of a focus on primary health care in the 1978 Alma Alta Declaration and emphasizing intersectoral action on underlying determinants of health in the 1986 Ottawa Charter. In reviewing national experiences with the HiAP approach and establishing guidance for implementation at all levels of governance, this Conference presents an opportunity to advance HiAP through the application of human rights, applying human rights to justify the mainstreaming of health in the development and implementation of public policy. Viewing HiAP as instrumental to a rights-based approach to health, it is necessary for the Global Conference to consider the beneficial application of “health-related rights” to the HiAP approach.
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 | 0.031 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".