Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world was different when the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion was released 30 years ago. Concerns over the environment and what we now call the 'social determinants of health' were prominent in 1986. But the acceleration of ecological crises and economic inequalities since then, in a more complex and multi-polar world, pose dramatically new challenges for those committed to the original vision of the Charter. Can the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), agreed to by all the world's governments, offer a new advocacy and programmatic platform for a renewal of health promotion's founding ethos? Critiqued from both the right and the left for, respectively, their aspirational idealism and lack of political analysis, the SDGs are an imperfect but still compelling normative statement of how much of the world thinks the world should look like. Many of the goals and targets provide signals for what we need to achieve, even if there remains a critical lacuna in articulating how this is to be done. The fundamental flaw in the SDGs is the implicit assumption that the same economic system, and its still-present neoliberal governing rules, that have created or accelerated our present era of rampaging inequality and environmental peril can somehow be harnessed to engineer the reverse. This flaw is not irrevocable, however, if health promoters - practitioners, researchers, advocates - focus their efforts on a few key SDGs that, with some additional critique, form a basic blueprint for a system of national and global regulation of capitalism (or even its transformation) that is desperately needed for social and ecological survival into the 22nd century. Whether or not these efforts succeed is a future unknown; but that the efforts are made is a present urgency.
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 | 0.041 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.116 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".