Future directions for the concept of salutogenesis: a position article
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aaron Antonovsky advanced the concept of salutogenesis almost four decades ago (Antonovsky, Health, Stress and Coping. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1979; Unravelling the Mystery of Health. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1987). Salutogenesis posits that life experiences shape the sense of coherence (SOC) that helps to mobilize resources to cope with stressors and manage tension successfully (determining one's movement on the health Ease/Dis-ease continuum). Antonovsky considered the three-dimensional SOC (i.e. comprehensibility, manageability, meaningfulness) as the key answer to his question about the origin of health. The field of health promotion has adopted the concept of salutogenesis as reflected in the international Handbook of Salutogenesis (Mittelmark et al., The Handbook of Salutogenesis. Springer, New York, 2016). However, health promotion mostly builds on the more vague, general salutogenic orientation that implies the need to foster resources and capacities to promote health and wellbeing. To strengthen the knowledge base of salutogenesis, the Global Working Group on Salutogenesis (GWG-Sal) of the International Union of Health Promotion and Education produced the Handbook of Salutogenesis. During the creation of the handbook and the regular meetings of the GWG-Sal, the working group identified four key conceptual issues to be advanced: (i) the overall salutogenic model of health; (ii) the SOC concept; (iii) the design of salutogenic interventions and change processes in complex systems; (iv) the application of salutogenesis beyond health sector. For each of these areas, we first highlight Antonovsky's original contribution and then present suggestions for future development. These ideas will help guide GWG-Sal's work to strengthen salutogenesis as a theory base for health promotion.
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 | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".