Challenges and prospects for research into health promotion in schools and the fight against cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the 40th anniversary of the Ottawa Charter approaching, it is worth reflecting on its legacy in health promotion, particularly in schools. This short yet aspirational text marked a turning point by establishing the basis for a new public health system that takes a comprehensive, intersectoral approach to social determinants. Rather than being merely an awareness-raising tool, the Charter promotes health education as a means of emancipation and of acting on living conditions, notably enabling the fight against cancers. This article provides a critical analysis of developments in health promotion research in schools. First, it identifies the initial challenge of moving beyond isolated interventions towards comprehensive, integrated and participatory approaches. It then explores the obstacles and incentives associated with the transferability of interventions and the development of implementation science. The third axis calls for the research field to be structured, with clear objectives, shared indicators and greater consideration given to practical knowledge. Finally, it stresses the need to place the reduction of social inequalities in health at the heart of interventions, adopting methodologies that are sensitive to the differentiated effects according to social contexts. In conclusion, research into health promotion in school settings must evolve towards a transdisciplinary systemic approach that is grounded in practice. Such an approach plays a strategic role in building truly equitable schools that promote the health and well-being of all by taking action to reduce cancers from an early age.
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 | 0.189 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".