Health Promotion: Trajectory and Current Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health promotion is linked to the living conditions of populations. In the last 40 years, health promotion reappears as a promising strategy for the field of Public Health. The health promotion movement emerged more vigorously from the 1970s onwards in developed countries—Canada, the United States and Western Europe. It is particularly in Canada that the concept of health promotion was revived, with the publication in 1974 of the Lalonde Report (A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians). This document placed health promotion at the level of strategic planning. The Lalonde Report has had a significant impact, providing insights into the recent health promotion movement across the world. Later, in 1978, the World Health Organization (WHO) held the 1st International Conference on Primary Health Care in Alma-Ata. This conference emphatically reaffirmed a broad concept of health. Health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease. This reconceptualization of health was fundamental in this process, as it served as the basis for the current health promotion movement. In this chapter, we intend to recover the trajectory and developments of the concept of health promotion and point out its future perspectives.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".