MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993750814

Global health promotion: how can Australia contribute?

2002· article· en· W2993750814 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marilyn Wise

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Journal of Australia · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsGlobalizationPolitical scienceGlobal healthCharterEconomic growthIndigenousDevelopment economicsSociologyHealth careEconomicsLawEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Issue addressed: Hard-won health gains in many countries are being lost in the wake of the profound economic, social and environmental changes - globalisation, privatisation, the dominance of economics in policy making - that have occurred over the last two decades. Discussion: The Ottawa Charter, the Jakarta Declaration, the environmental movement, the women's movement, the growing internationalisation of Indigenous rights activism and the fights for human rights, for peace and for social justice all show that it is possible to negotiate national and institutional relationships with these global trends. In this context, Australia has much positive experience upon which to build in developing our capacity to work globally Conclusion: It is possible to work toward a different form of globalisation directed toward achieving different ends, including positive human health and ecological balance. So what?: Health promoters should work for changes in policy at international, national and institutional levels as well as incorporating these considerations into their own practice. (author abstract)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0170.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion Journal of AustraliaSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207