Six assertions about the salutogenic approach and health promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The concept of health is a continuously changing issue, with ever richer and more comprehensive \nmeanings and definitions. In recent decades, we have witnessed a strong evolution of the scientific paradigms \nand cultural frameworks that influence health patterns. In particular, in 1986 the Charter of Ottawa gave \nfurther dimensions to the concept of health and pushed the concept of health promotion to the forefront. In \nthis context, the salutogenic approach, proposed by A. Antonovsky, represents a theoretical contribution \nwhich stimulates discussion about meanings and implications. \nAim and Methods: The present paper aims to provide a conceptual framework for the interpretation of \nhealth patterns and to broaden the theoretical interpretation of the salutogenic approach. In order to do \nthis, a literature review was carried out, taking into account several disciplines and perspectives, including \nsociology and anthropology. The data collection for this paper was undertaken through two parallel literature \nreviews and systematisation of the information gathered. \nResults: The following health patterns were identified: the disease treatment pattern, the health care pattern, \nthe disease prevention pattern and the health promotion pattern. These approaches allow one to better \nanalyse and understand the added values of the salutogenic approach. \nConclusions: The present discussion contributes to the debate surrounding the salutogenesis theory and its \napplicability to the healthcare setting by proposing six assertions about the salutogenic approach to health \npromotion.
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 | 0.032 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".