From WHO's constitution to the Bangkok Charter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ottawa charter (WHO, 1986) defined Health Promotion as “the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health ” and recognised that the health sector could not be held responsible for it alone, nor governments could face the task alone. In fact, besides governments, health promotion demands a coordinated action by “other social and economic sectors, by non governmental and voluntary organizations, by local authorities, by industry and by the media”. Going far beyond health care, Health Promotion requires policy makers in all sectors and at all levels “to be aware of the health consequences of their decision and to accept their responsibilities for health ” and contribute to Healthy Public Policies. The Ottawa Charter was built on the debate on intersectoral action for health in the preceding World Health Assembly, as well as on the progress made through the Declaration of Alma-Ata and the establishment of WHO's targets for Health for All. Almost 20 years later, facing the challenges of a globalised world, the 6th Global Conference on Health Promotion (WHO, 2005) reaffirms in Bangkok the need to recur to Health Promotion to address the determinants of health and advocates for: health based on human rights and solidarity; investing in sustainable policies, actions and infrastructure; build capacity; regulate and legislate to ensure protection
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".