MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198363977 · doi:10.1177/17579759211035089

Re-envisioning health promotion: Thinking and acting salutogenically towards equity for historically resilient communities

2021· article· en· W3198363977 on OpenAlexaff
Fungisai Gwanzura Ottemöller, Tulani Francis L. Matenga, J. Hope Corbin, Humaira Nakhuda, Peter Delobelle, Christa Ayele, Nikita Boston-Fisher, Stephanie Leitch, Josette Wicker, Oliver Mweemba

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Promotion · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityOntario Stroke Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionSalutogenesisFutures contractHealth equityEquity (law)Public relationsSociologyPsychologyPolitical sciencePublic healthMedicineNursingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores how the salutogenic theory can enable us to re-envision health promotion work with marginalized communities, towards an approach that acknowledges and honours their resilience. We use the three core concepts in Antonovsky's salutogenic model of health - sense of coherence, generalized resistance resources and specific resistance resources - to explore the theory's relevance to health equity, thus presenting new opportunities for how we might radically re-evaluate current health promotion approaches. We conclude that a more equitable health promotion requires increased participation of marginalized communities in shaping their futures and suggest a new model for historically grounded salutogenic health promotion.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.069
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health PromotionSame topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207