Community music as health promotion: equity-related insights from urban context in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health promotion researchers and practitioners the world over are grappling with how to tackle growing health inequity. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (Ottawa Charter) provides a framework for addressing inequity from an intersectoral, strengths-based, and social justice approach; yet this framework continues to be underutilized. Similarly, evidence suggests creative arts can support positive health and well-being but the potential for the arts to contribute to efforts addressing health inequity is underexplored. In this community-embedded, qualitative case study, we investigate the contribution community-centred music making can have across the five health promotion action areas outlined in the Ottawa Charter. Findings from this study highlight the potential for community music to contribute to personal skill development in relation to maintaining a healthy and well life and engaging in equity-focussed change. Community music can create supportive environments through fostering social connections and activating community spaces. Community music can be a powerful means of strengthening community action by bringing communities together around local issues and activism. When integrated into social services, community music can support the re-orienting of health services by connecting people with services and by encouraging people to share health-related knowledge and resources. Finally, our findings demonstrate that community music can shape public opinion and be a conduit to reach people in positions of power in ways that have the potential to influence healthy public policy. This study demonstrates that health promotion researchers and practitioners can and should look to communities' cultural and creative assets in our efforts towards health equity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".