Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of the philosophy for health promotion of the Ottawa Charter, led to the creation of the concept of „healthy settings“ related to people’s lives. They are based on the settings approach, according which health is created as a result of the dynamic interaction between personal, environmental and organizational factors. The aim of this article is to present to Bulgarian readers basic concepts and principles related to health promotion in a particular setting, as well as more widely established settings and new opportunities for health promotion, based on the principle of supportive environments, initiated by the Ottawa Charter philosophy. Methods: a search in Pubmed and Google scholar with keywords: healthy settings, healthy cities, schools, universities, hospitals, prisons for health promotion, published between 1986 - 2021; review of the lists of literature sources of the selected publications. The review includes: beginning, initiators, goals, scope, achievements and some difficulties of the application of the idea of a supportive environments in the discussed healthy settings. Conclusions: The presented healthy settings are initiated and continuously supported by the WHO. Some of the established healthy settings are evolving and some of the health promoting networks have been proven effective for over three decades. Modern and varied activities in people’s lives challenge the concept of “healthy settings”and put on the agenda the need to discuss updating the Ottawa Charter, 1986.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".