Levels of Public and Higher Education in Health Promotion in the Light of Focus Group Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health is considered an upgrade value by The WHO Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986), so we study the institutional role of these "upgrade values" from different points of view like roles, interests and representatives.We make our research both in the public and higher education also in the national and international field.In our comparative study we analyse the processes of the higher education in the context of the participants and we outline the conceps of the students.We made two focus group interviews with those students who took part in daily physical education and in their first year in the University of Debrecen and the University of Nyíregyháza.Each focus group contained 15 students who represented their own institutions.They also had to compare their health behaviour and sports practice in secondary school and university.Our research questions focused on the will to do something for health awareness (Pikó, 2002).We were curious about how the forms of developed health behaviour change entering the higher education and what the main motivations of health development are.Our results show that the students of both universities highlighted the institutional infrastructure, the teacher's attitude and most importantly the social effect of daily physical 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 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 | 0.043 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".