Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to achieve the mission of the Health Promotion Journal of Australia to publish ‘high-quality research and critical perspectives from researchers, decision-makers and practitioners that contribute to improving knowledge and evidence for health promotion action across Australasia’, preference is given to articles presenting significant, innovative and/or useful findings from methodologically robust and cutting-edge qualitative and quantitative studies of health-promoting policies, strategies, programs and evaluations. Yet, as the Editor-in-Chief, I often find myself pondering whether the manuscripts submitted reflect health promotion innovation. I ask myself ‘do the contributions provide something new, different or unique for the health promotion community that builds on, or extends, the findings and conclusions of past scholarship?’. While innovation is embedded in the way the editorial team assess the relevance of submissions to our readership, it is a pretty fluid concept. It is as much subjective, as it is objective. Yet, the National Preventive Health Strategy (NPHS) states that ‘across Australia there are many examples of effective and innovative approaches to prevention’.1 (p. 42) I agree, but I also think that there is lots of ambiguity about what health promotion innovation constitutes. So…, I thought it could be useful to explore this concept a little further to help guide potential authors about what we mean by health promotion innovation, and why it is important for the journal, and subsequently for advancing the health promotion field. The term ‘innovation’ is most often defined as ‘the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service) or process, a new marketing method or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisations or external relations’.2 While, the term innovation is frequently applied to a range of health and social contexts, it has its origins in the business sector. It is pleasing to see how this meaning of innovation has morphed into something different when viewed from a health (promotion) lens. To understand what I mean, it is first useful to return to what is meant by ‘health promotion’. The most recent Global Conference on Health Promotion referred to health promotion as ‘the process of enabling people to take control over and improve their health and its determinants’ consistent with historical definitions aligned to the Ottawa Charter.3 It also recognised that ‘health promotion is about creating the conditions and conducive environment for healthy choices for all and where people live, work, age and play’, which is also consistent with social determinants of health scholarship from the past two decades.3 So, one can reasonably assume, at least in broad terms, that the concept of ‘health promotion innovation’ equates to the development and implementation of new or improved health promotion programs, policies and systems that enable people to control their health and its determinants, including the conditions and environments in which they live, work, age and play. I think this a relatively fair assumption, but invite and encourage other health promotion students, practitioners, policy-makers and researchers, to provide alternative views through submissions to the Health Promotion Journal of Australia. That is, the concept of health promotion innovation is embedded in many facets of our work. As such, we should engage in a deeper consciousness about why this is important, and how health promotion innovation can be adopted to provide a more equitable and sustainable world. The National Health and Medical Research Council has established a Health Innovation Advisory Committee to drive this agenda in a health research context. Perhaps the Australia Health Promotion Association should do the same? Perhaps the concept of embracing health promotion innovation should be an explicit International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE) health promotion competency? For the interim, please reflect on what role you can play to drive a deeper understanding about health promotion innovation within the context in which you live, play, age and work. As we enter a new era of health promotion focused more explicitly on the well-being economy, it will be increasingly important to grapple with the concept of health promotion innovation. The recently developed Geneva Charter for Well-being has an explicit transformative and future focused well-being discourse that necessarily intersects with this agenda.4 An upcoming special issue of the Health Promotion Journal of Australia will be dedicated to this topic, so please consider submitting an article if you are working, or generating innovative evidence, in this space.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
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".