Nurses and teachers : partnerships for green health promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Background</b>: <br/>The term ‘green health promotion’ is given to health promotion underpinned by the principles of ecological health and sustainability. Green health promotion is supported philosophically by global health promotion documents such as the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986) and the ecological public health movement. Green health promotion in schools aims to practice the principles of ecological health and sustainability. <b><br/></b><b>Methods</b>: An extended literature review revealed a paucity of literature about green health promotion in schools across disciplines. Literature about nurses and health promotion in schools is generally found in nursing publications. Literature about ecological sustainability in schools is mostly found in teaching publications. <b>Results</b>: <br/>This paper explores the nexus between nursing and health promotion, and teachers and ecological sustainability. Collaborative partnerships between health and education do not capitalise on programs such as Health Promoting Schools and the School Based Youth Health Nurse Program in Queensland, Australia. The authors consider how collaborative partnerships between health and education in schools can work towards green health promotion. <b><br/></b><b>Conclusion</b>: Nursing’s approach to health promotion and education’s approach to ecological sustainability need to be aligned to enhance green health promotion in schools and promote a new generation of ‘tree huggers and hippies’.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".