Integrierte Gesundheitsberichterstattung auf Landes- und kommunaler Ebene: Initiativen und Ansätze der letzten 20 Jahre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ottawa Charter produced a new paradigm of health promotion, putting forward concepts such as intersectoral policies, determinants of health, and mediating. In this framework, the demand was made that health reports should be conceptualized as integrative, containing data from all sectors where health determinants can be found. The research question is: Can we identify explicit concepts and a publicly communicated practice of integrated health reporting in the German-speaking countries? In order to answer this question, a web search was carried out and supplemented by emailed inquiries to key project personnel.Eight projects were identified: four projects/initiatives represented local or regional integrated health reporting; in North Rhine-Westphalia there were two initiatives started by the federal state but relating to local reporting; in Berlin (Germany) and Burgenland (Austria) we found reports for the federal states. The projects are presented in compressed form. Limitations of this explorative research are its restriction to reports explicitly labeled as "integrative" and the narrowly defined search terms.Positive findings were good indicator concepts, some legal frameworks, and other promotive factors, such as scholarly support. However, there are shortcomings in putting integrative reporting into practice. Barriers might be the complexity of programs, missing financial, personal, and professional resources, organizational and methodical problems, as well as anxieties and prejudices. Some examples show that the barriers can be overcome. The guideline "Good Practice Health Reporting" supports the call for integrated reporting explicitly, however too much is hidden in the document.
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 | 0.135 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".