Revisión sistemática de promoción de la salud ambiental infantil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the interventions oriented towards the promotion of children's environmental health available in the literature and their relationship with the conditions and requirements to achieve health according to the Ottawa Charter. A systematic literature review was conducted in which articles were searched in the databases of the VHL, EBSCO Host, Scielo and the academic Google and ScienceDirect search engines, published from 2017 to 2017 and which included interventions on children's environmental health. The search terms used were environmental health, Saúde Ambiental, environmental Health combined with the Boolean term "y - &" with the terms child health, Saúde da Criança, Child Health, health promotion, Promoção da Saúde and Health Promotion. 937 articles were identified, of which 14 contained interventions related to topics such as dengue, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis, tobacco smoke pollution, healthy homes, basic sanitation, solid waste management, clean schools, and lead and arsenic contamination. The interventions were mainly carried out in school environments and in accordance with the Ottawa letter, corresponded to the creation of favorable environments and reinforcement of community action, followed by strategies that promote the development of personal skills.
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 | 0.050 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".