The construction of critical knowledge for the development of human health : an evaluation of a health promotion intervention in a rural community in Mexico, 1997-1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is about the power dimensions of health promotion seen from the \nperspective of a rural community in Mexico. Drawing upon the conception of health \npromotion proposed in the Ottawa Charter 1986, health promotion is examined here as \na device of hegemonic power and also as a possibility to subvert domination. The \nassumptions underpinning this thesis are based in the works of Antonio Gramsci, Pierre \nBourdieu and Paulo Freire. The work of Michel Foucault also helped in the \ndevelopment of particular concepts of health and health promotion. It is argued in this \nthesis that the control of power is achieved by controlling meaning in social networks \nand that, because of the unique capacity of health to involve the objective and \nsubjective dimensions of the human person, the discourse and practice of health \npromotion are outstanding means for the control of meaning. This thesis has three main \ncomponents: the analysis of power and knowledge and of the official discourse and \npractice of health promotion; the design of a pedagogic intervention aiming to achieve \nchanges in adult learners subordination patterns and the description and evaluation of \nthat intervention. The pedagogic intervention focused on processes rather than on \ncontents and brought problems of students' reality to deconstruction through dialogue. \nThis study has a qualitative methodological approach and is presented as a case study. \nThe empirical data were collected through fieldwork observations during the \nimplementation of the intervention. It is proposed in this study that dialogue can be a \nmeans to triangulate data. The analysis of data is done here with the aid of process and \noutcome indicators capable of monitoring changes in the students' position in the face \nof power. This thesis showed that there was a possibility to achieve changes in \nstudents' patterns of subordination through pedagogic practices where they constructed \nknowledge embedded in their values and meanings to face their health problems.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".