From the Ottawa Charter to Planetary Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of salutogenesis in health promotion practice and policy has a history of partial but evolving realisation. Following Antonovsky’s advocacy of the use of these ideas in public health, social movements and global strategies have had varying degrees of success of implementing salutogenic perspectives. Starting with feminist health promotion activism in the 1970s, this chapter explores the translation of salutogenic principles into the Health for All movement (1981). We then explore the development of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986), the Millennium Development Goals (2000) and the Sustainable Development Goals (2015) in the context of salutogenesis. As the field and practice of health promotion evolved, so too did the implementation of salutogenic concepts in global development strategies. We end the chapter with a conceptual and practical introduction to the current and evolving planetary health paradigm, reflecting that the participatory vision of feminists in the 1970s is becoming realised through a new process of “planetary salutogenesis.” Through acts of joyful creation, a diverse range of voices are now shaping the health promotion and global development agenda, through a form of salutogenic dialogue of meaningful interactions between groups and nations, towards common planetary goals.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".