Le débat international sur l'efficacité de la promotion de la santé : d'où vient-il et pourquoi est-il si important ? 1
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims at positioning the issue of health promotion effectiveness in the context of the international debate around the utilisation of evidence-based practices. In a sociological and historical perspective, it analyses how the evidence-based practices approach has confronted the field of health promotion, especially since the second half of the 1990's. It argues that this has occurred in the context of the evaluative concerns put forward by governments all over the world, in order to downsize their publicly funded health systems. After providing definitions and some historical context, five methodological and political issues raised by the idea of utilizing evidence-based practices in health promotion are presented. The paper concludes that this approach is far from a panacea but has potential limited utilization for certain kinds of health promotion practices. Alternative suggestions on how to establish «best practices» in this field are also offered.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it