MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400614081 · doi:10.17533/udea.rfnsp.14549

Controversias sobre la Carta de Ottawa: Debate promovido por Michel O'Neill

2013· article· es· W4400614081 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Facultad Nacional de Salud Pública · 2013
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesMichel foucaultPolitical scienceArtPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En el Volumen 19, Número 2 de Junio del 2012, de la revista “Global HealthPromotion” Michel O ́Neill escribe un editorial con el título: “The Ottawa Charter: a manifestó for “the protestor” que yo traduzco como “La Carta de Ottawa: ¿un manifiesto para el “”indignado””. En él invita a los interesados en el campo de la Promoción de la Salud (PS) a la reflexión y al debate. Conociendo la experiencia y conocimientos de M. O ́Neill, su invitación es muy motivadora para aquellos que hemos dedicado una buena parte de nuestra vida profesional a impulsar y construir una agenda conceptual y práctica de Promoción de la Salud (PS). En mi caso, la he trabajado en el ámbito hispanoamericano, siempre teniendo como faro la Carta de Ottawa.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it