Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In an age of jet travel and porous borders, a large portion of the world's population is on the move. But while international law recognizes a person's right to leave their country, no country is obliged to allow anyone in, and health can be one of the reasons. From 1960 to 1990, immigration medical screening for public health reasons became less a government priority with advances in the treatment of infectious disease, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM). But since 1990, there has been a renewed interest in such screening because of the re-emergence of diseases, such as tuberculosis, combined with unprecedented population movement and a widening gap in countries' health standards. But while some screening has proved effective, other forms raise questions as to the ethical and practical limits of such measures. Countries use several kinds of health screening to detect conditions such as tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases that may pose a public health risk and conditions, such as heart disease, to avoid a burden on the host country's health services. 1969 International Health Regulations (IHR), which were revised this year, limit the health screening measures, which countries can apply, to short-term visitors who pose an immediate risk of spreading a disease. IHR, however, allow countries to apply additional health screening measures to people seeking long-term residence, recognizing the potential burden a sick person could have on the new country's health services. For this reason, there are no limitations on a country's right to demand health information of those seeking residence, while they are limited in what they can ask of short-term visitors. Health screening of tourists and other short-term visitors is therefore rare and came to the fore during the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) crisis in 2003, when thermal scanners--in addition to pre-arrival health questionnaires--were used to detect passengers with a fever at airports across South-East Asia. Countries such as Argentina and Brazil, far from the epicentre of the outbreak in Asia, also adopted temporary measures by screening passengers arriving from Canada with a written questionnaire and a short interview. The booths for screening are still in place but no screening is currently being carried out, said Colin Isaacs of the Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment, who frequently travels to the two countries. Similar health screening measures have been considered in the event of an avian influenza outbreak among humans, but according to WHO are unlikely to be effective because pandemic influenza is considered more difficult than SARS to control. If only a few countries are affected, travel-related measures, such as exit screening for persons departing from affected areas, might delay international spread somewhat but cannot stop it, states a 2005 WHO report entitled: Avian influenza: assessing the pandemic. report adds: When large numbers of cases occur ... entry screening at airports and borders will have no impact. Tough anti-SARS measures raised questions about civil rights but were welcomed in the Face of a frightening new disease. Some people even volunteered to go into quarantine. In contrast, many international public health experts agree that barring people with HIV from entering a country is ineffective in preventing spread of the virus and discriminatory. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».