Salutogenesis and health literacy: The health promotion simplex!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By introducing the Ottawa Charter for health promotion (WHO, 1986), the World Health Organization (WHO) not only changed the public health discourse, but also emphasised new perspectives on personal skills needed for promoting health and wellbeing over the life course. While the Charter highlighted that health promotion is built on an asset-based approach towards health, aiming at enabling people to exert greater control over their life and health, the stream initiated by this drift has enabled two concepts to become the most important subject matters in contemporary international health research: health literacy and salutogenesis. The first is known to be the indicator of the so-called health-related personal skills introduced in the Ottawa Charter (Kickbusch, 1997); the latter, a health paradigm, a complementary approach to the traditional pathological biomedical vision prevailing in the healthcare context (Antonovsky, 1987). When examining the scientific discourse around health literacy, we are surprised to see that while scholars have been extensively discussing the ‘literacy’ component of the composed term ‘health literacy’, discussion of the ‘health’ element is hardly to be found. Nevertheless, the rich and ongoing discussion on literacy has intersected health. Today, broad literacy concepts addressing functional, interactive and critical literacy are added to the health literacy discourse, giving way to multiliteracies and social literacies to merge with health literacy (see Chapters 14, 18, 36 and 39, this volume). This was not only the impetus for multiple research strains that broadened the theoretical and conceptual discussion, but also facilitated the uptake of health literacy by various research disciplines, such as healthcare, medicine, public health, education, psychology or sociology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".