Shaping the future of health promotion: priorities for action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Union for Health Promotion and Education, in collaboration with the Canadian Consortium for Health Promotion Research, and with support from the Public Health Agency of Canada, have formulated recommendations on priorities for action regarding the policies and system conditions necessary for sustainable and effective health promotion. The statement, launched in June in Vancouver at the IUHPE World Conference on Health Promotion and Health Education, and reproduced below, is the product of an international Project Advisory Group's reflections derived from a collection of commissioned field reports on renewing commitment to the path set out by the Ottawa Charter. The field reports themselves will be published in their entirety in a special issue of 'Promotion & Education', official journal of the International Union for Health Promotion and Education, in December 2007.
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 | 0.107 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.042 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.040 | 0.055 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".