Norwegian Health Promotion Policy: The Pendulum Swings from 1984 to 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, the macrosystem-level influence on health promotion developments in Norway is analysed by demonstrating how the development of the Norwegian welfare state, initiated before World War II, has been influenced by shifting political foci and priorities. The development of the welfare state has been largely a political matter guided by left wing governments with high priorities on improving structural conditions and securing healthy living conditions in work-places, housing, education and access to health services. Similarly, development of the Norwegian Health Promotion Policy over the last two decades has been influenced by varying levels of politicalization. Under left wing governments, health policies were developed as opposed to policies primarily focused on prevention of disease; there was also an increase in local autonomy in implementation of national health policy and a focus on equity in health. In all these change processes, emphasis was given to how public health could be improved through the governing system from national to local implementation and by involvement of an increasing number of sectors. During the periods when right wing governments were in power, more emphasis was given to individual responsibility for health and health policy declined in political importance. This pendulum swing in the politicalization of health policies is analysed through White Papers and action plans. It traces how Norwegian governments have acted upon the international health promotion movement initiated at the Alma Ata conference and through the Ottawa Health Promotion Charter. Similar pendulum swings are also found in other Western countries.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".