The Ottawa Charter 30 years on: still an important standard for health promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization’s Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion has been considered a seminal document and template for health promotion since its inception and is still seen as a “gold standard” for health promoters worldwide who wish to improve health and reduce inequalities. Although its principles have been widely applauded, opportunities to transfer these principles into the radical changes and practical solutions needed globally to improve health have been missed. This paper examines how the Charter has influenced United Kingdom health care policies by examining two of the Charter’s key strategies, creating healthy environments and reorientating health services. In the UK, currently, there remains an over emphasis on personal responsibility and behaviour change, rather than tackling fundamental societal-wide issues. Nevertheless, it is argued that the Ottawa Charter retains its relevance to the present day and that all policy makers and professionals working to promote positive health should revisit and take heed of its principles.
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 | 0.054 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".