Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 emphasises that all individuals have a healthy lifestyle and promote well-being. Some key developments in the global agenda of health promotion have been made in the past decades, including the Ottawa Charter 1986, the Bangkok Charter 2005, the Helsinki Statement on Health in All Policies 2013, and the Shanghai Declaration (9th Global Conference on Health Promotion 2016). Analysis of these charters and declarations helps charting the evolving standards, goals, and strategies. Indeed, most scientists and health professionals regard health promotion as a comprehensive approach to achieving SDG 3. At the community level, health promotion plays an essential role in improving personal preventive behaviour, population health, and health equality. Nevertheless, the pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not only severely affecting national economies but also posing a threat to human health and public safety. Obviously, the emergence and worldwide spread of the COVID-19 pandemic have caused a considerable reduction in implementing the progress and development of SDG 3. This chapter defines health promotion practices with a focus on reviewing and evaluating the recent developments, progress made, the lessons learned, and the challenges encountered in implementing health promotion practices, principles, strategies, and approaches, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The international charters will be reviewed by case studies of regions and countries in terms of endorsement, supports, and actions, and with reference to initiatives to help developing countries. The evolvement of health promotion practices in the global agenda and actions and international collaborations are the prerequisites for tackling the devastating global public health crisis and confronting the challenges of the future in the achievement of SDG 3.
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 | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".