The three paradigms on urban health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background While public health and urban planning share a historical connection in the mid-19th century, when public health and sanitation became a key guiding principle for urban planning, the two disciplines evolved in separate ways after major technological and social developments such as the development of germ theory and the ascent of biomedicine. Recently, urban planners and public health experts globally are calling for a reconnection between the health and urban planning spheres. However, there are different schools of thought around how to address health in the urban context that originates from different worldviews and epistemological traditions of the disciplines. Methods This study is a narrative review that explores the core beliefs and assumptions of the different research traditions that are observed around health in the urban context. Results The study identifies three main traditions. The 'urban health science' tradition is characterized by the pathogenic and epidemiological analysis of urban problems, suggesting predominantly technological solutions to these issues. Scholars of this tradition emphasize that urban health requires straight Cartesian causal thinking to inform interventions to promote the health of urban populations. The 'healthy cities movement' tradition is based on the principles of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion with strong roots in social movements, and takes a value-based approach to solutions that embraces the principles of solidarity, equity, sustainability and empowerment. While these two traditions originate from the discipline of public health, the third 'healthy urban planning' tradition emerged from the urban planning discipline and proposes to include health as objectives in the spatial development of cities. Conclusions This study identifies the core beliefs and assumptions of the paradigms of urban health and highlights areas where beliefs and assumptions epistemologically or practically overlap and interface. Key messages Scholars from different epistemological traditions possess different worldview on the problem definition and solution to urban health. The three paradigms on urban health are not mutually exclusive, rather each could learn from each other to promote the health of urban citizens.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".