Health promotion research has come of age! Structuring the field based on the practices of health promotion researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health promotion is mostly framed as a discourse and practices based on a set of values and principles that promote changes at various levels (individual, community and global). There is no well-defined knowledge base and no widely agreed knowledge development methods. During the past decades, health promotion knowledge has developed following a potluck model. Researchers from various disciplinary backgrounds attracted to the values and transformative vision of health promotion have used their disciplinary-based research methods and theories to conduct studies about the various practices that are associated with health promotion. Although health promotion research has acquired many attributes of a distinct field, researching practices from various disciplinary perspectives is not sufficient to create a coherent knowledge base for health promotion. We propose three dimensions to further structure health promotion research. The first relates to the object for which knowledge is produced. For health promotion research this relates to health social practices. The second dimension relates to the purpose and ethics of research. In the case of health promotion research it pursues the dual purpose of producing knowledge (epistemic aim) and contributing to social changes (transformative aim). The third dimension concerns the knowledge produced and the conditions for valid knowledge. In the case of health promotion research, the condition of knowledge production should include a recognition of the complexity of social practice and the necessary dialogue between scientific. True to health promotion principles, we propose a bottom-up process for structuring the field through the creation of a 'Global Handbook of Health Promotion Research' that would draw on the research practices of those involved in health promotion research.
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 | 0.121 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".