MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2715878472 · doi:10.7189/jogh.07.010308

Empowering people for sustainable development: the Ottawa Charter and beyond

2017· review· en· W2715878472 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sagar B. Dugani, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Niranjan Kissoon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Health · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenBC Children's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterPolitical scienceMEDLINEMedicineGeographyEnvironmental healthLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I n November 1986, 212 participants from 38 countries convened in Ottawa, Canada, at the first International Conference on Health Promotion organized by the World Health Organization (WHO), Health and Welfare Canada, and the Canadian Public Health Association.Although not representative of the entire globe, these participants adopted the Ottawa Charter on health promotion as "the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health".The five action areas identified were to: build healthy public policy; create supportive environments; strengthen community action; develop personal skills; and re-orient health care services, toward prevention of illness and promotion of health [1-3].The Charter laid the foundation for subsequent efforts in advancing global health over the next 30 years, including development of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).The MDGs have given way to a more robust and comprehensive agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [4], underpinned by the principles of reducing inequities and universal health coverage (UHC).Thus the vision of the Charter is foundational to progress in health care over the last 30 years.Here, we review the progress made and discuss the unfinished agenda of the Charter as well as opportunities to accelerate its objectives in the context of UHC and the SDGs, through collaborations of international and local health organizations.The notion of UHC was articulated earlier in September 1978 when the Alma Ata Declaration on primary health care was adopted at a joint conference of the WHO and United Nations Children' s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) [5].This declaration emphasized the importance of 'health for all', a message strengthened through the Charter and in the WHO strategy to ensure 'Health for All by 2000'.In this regard, the Alma Ata Declaration and the Charter were seminal documents that shaped the global health agenda.The Charter urged nations to advocate, enable, and mediate, in order to achieve progress in the five action areas [3].While the ambitious agenda of the Charter and Health for All were not fully realized, this heralded the era of the MDGs that guided the global health agenda from 2000-2015, and yielded substantial but uneven gains.The MDGs have been replaced by the SDGs, which comprise of 169 targets, and were adopted in September 2015 by 193 nations [6].The Ottawa Charter notes that "peace, shelter, education,

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.450 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Global HealthSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207