Concept of ‘Health Protection’ in Russian and Foreign Preschool Education: Conceptual Approaches and Definitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article delves into the study of the problem of conceptual and substantive provision of the process of health protection, represented in the works of Russian and foreign researchers of preschool childhood. A brief overview of the origin of the idea of health saving in Russia and the main conceptual approaches to the protection and promotion of children’s health in a preschool educational organization is given. From the standpoint of interdisciplinary aproach the interrelation of the process of health protection with various sciences is considered. In order to study more fully the formation of definitions and concepts describing health protection, examples from the works of European scientists, representatives of various scientific fields, who are united by the ideas of the Ottawa Charter of the World Health Organization, are given. The main ideas and content of the concept of salutogenesis, which has become a professional standard in the field of child health promotion in the reviewed German-language scientific works, little known to the Russian pedagogical community, are revealed. The material presented in the article made it possible, from the standpoint of an interdisciplinary approach, to scientifically substantiate the author’s concept of organizing health-protection activities in a preschool educational organization and successfully implement it in the practice of preschool education and teacher training.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".