Repensar la Carta de Ottawa 30 años después
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 30 a ños de la Carta de Ottawa 1 para la promoción de la salud, aprobada en noviembre de 1986, es válido preguntarse cómo ha logrado influenciar las políticas de salud pública o específicamente, como se ñala la Carta, «avanzar hacia una nueva salud pública» 2 .Cada efeméride de la Carta de Ottawa se escriben editoriales o suplementos de revistas sobre su alcance.Por ello cabe preguntarse qué nuevo tenemos que decir, qué pensamos de los avances o fracasos de la Carta de Ottawa (ya sea en su dise ño, sus contenidos o su implementación) y, por último, qué vigencia tiene en la época actual considerando los profundos cambios que se han producido en todo el mundo.Tales reflexiones son las que se comparten en este editorial.Los problemas y los desafíos que se presentan para la salud son muchos de ellos similares o incluso los mismos ya descritos; lo que cambian son los contextos, y lo que se requiere son nuevas intervenciones o estrategias para su abordaje.
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 | 0.023 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
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".