The Curitiba Statement on Health Promotion and Equity: Italian version and analysis of criticalities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Curitiba Statement of health promotion and equity is the main result of the World Conference on International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE - UIPES), held in May 2016 in Curitiba. The Curitiba Statement is the outcome of a participatory process, result of collaboration of all conference participants. The Curitiba Statement represents the continuity from Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. This document remembers and asks to International Organizations, Governments, at all levels of the Institutions, the Health Sector, Citizens and Health Professionals and Researchers to change and eliminate all forms of discrimination and exclusion. STUDY DESIGN: Description of the translation and validation process. METHODS: The translation process from Spanish and English is based on the translation techniques enumerated by Fawcett in 1997: borrowing, calque, literal translation, transposition, modulation, reformulation, adaptation. RESULTS: The translation process produced some critical issues shifting from English to Italian: the most critical words and expressions correspond to the more significant ones of the Curitiba Statement, and these issues are reflected in research, politics and practice. In particular, we analyzed the translation of Inequity, Advocate, and Players, and then discussed their use in different expressions in the original text. CONCLUSION: Considering the Curitiba Statement's message has to be transversal, and it is addressed not only to Professionals but to all Citizens, researchers have made the choice of a clear translation for the Italian readers, not always similar to English form, but consistent and faithful in its content. To spread the culture and practice of Health Promotion, a deep attention in the translation of international documents could allow the propagation of ideas and strategies, from global to local.
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 | 0.025 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".