PRÁCTICAS SOCIALES EN PROMOCIÓN DE LA SALUD. APROXIMACION TEÓRICA SOBRE HABITUS, MODOS DE SER Y ESTILOS DE VIDA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Carta de Ottawa de 1.986, muestra un “Portafolio de Promocion de Salud”, conformado por cinco herramientas las cuales generan las siguientes consecuencias: contribuyen a fomentar la practica de la salud publica basada en la evidencia; propician elementos que favorecen la salud, es decir, la salutogenesis, el bienestar y la longevidad en el marco de la experiencia vivida en espacios sociales contextuales de derechos humanos; incorporan acciones de naturaleza social estrategicamente emergentes y facilitan el desarrollo de practicas sociales en tanto fortalecen la teoria y la practica de la gestion compleja en salud publica. El presente trabajo busca indagar sobre la teoria de “practicas sociales” en promocion de la salud, especialmente lo referente al marco teorico de habitus, modos de ser y estilos de vida. El metodo hermeneutico utilizado se centra en el analisis del modelo estructuralista-constructivista de Pierre Bourdieu y en aportes sobre el tema de Michel Foucault y Anthony Giddens. El resultado del analisis referente a la perspectiva teorico-social contribuye a la investigacion en salud, especialmente en promocion de la salud y el mejoramiento de la eficacia de la acciones de la disciplina salud publica.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".