Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Neither the Ottawa Charter nor any other WHO Conference declarations mention research and its role as a driver of health promotion practice. As a result, health promotion is often perceived as a discourse based on principles and values, an ideology that lacks scientific rigour. Despite this lack of recognition in health promotion documents, there is a burgeoning research domain that labels itself health promotion. The growing number of journals that publish empirical studies related to health promotion, the growing number of research training programs with a subspeciality in health promotion, and the growing number of research infrastructure (research chairs, research centres, institutes and so on) are all sure signs of a thriving research enterprise. However, these are institutionally disparate and dispersed in various disciplinary such as: education, public health, psychology and others. Up to now, health promotion research has followed what one could call “potluck” a development model. In this model, interested individuals come with their own piece of empirical study, anchored in their disciplinary perspective, and the study is labelled health promotion essentially because they have decided to label it this way. As a result, the field of health promotion research also appears as disparate, wherein various and even contradictory epistemological and ethical perspectives are present. In this presentation, we will argue that health promotion as a practice and as policy systems would benefit from a stronger and more unified field of health promotion research, to the extent that research creates knowledge based on these practices and policy systems. Using a sustainability framework, we will show how research reinforces the conditions for the sustainability of health promotion practice and systems and we will propose some methodological and ethical principles with the potential to strengthen the positive and mutual benefits of health promotion research and practice.
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 | 0.208 | 0.203 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.014 |
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".