Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 1987, the Commission on Health Research for Development noted that new knowledge (research) was needed to create effective action to improve the health of poor people and that it (this type of research) had been enormously neglected.1 They went on to indicate that all public health services need to embed in their plans the resources needed to carry it out. This needed to be applied across the board, and not only in low-income countries. Little has changed since 1987. In this issue of the Journal, we report a point of view that builds on this need, indicating that it is not sufficient just to carry out the research but that it needs to lead to action for change and this change must be documented.2 Moreover, the authors indicate that the process requires a formal mechanism in order for it to be monitored. Only in this way can we confirm that it leads to the desperately needed action for health. They propose a radical approach to this problem, namely that scientific journals (starting with Public Health Action [PHA]) undertake responsibility for monitoring. We fully concur with the authors that a mechanism is essential to ensure that what we say we do, we actually do. Moreover, such a mechanism would provide ‘value added’ to the research we carry out. In public health, it is important not only to identify the ‘what’ but also the ‘who’, ‘when’ and ‘where’. The real question is, how should this be done? If this were a task that the Journal were to carry out, it would need to be supported with the resources to do so. This implies several things. First, those who would carry out the task must be qualified for it if it is to have any credibility. This would imply that the Journal would need to engage (a) specialist(s) to undertake the task. Would this be ad hoc or full-time? What would the qualifications need to be? Second, as PHA operates on the revenues obtained from the authors who publish in the Journal, would we then add a surcharge to cover the costs? Obviously this would normally be a charge passed on to those who originally funded the research in most instances, but it would further distance the Journal from being able to publish original research that does not have a sponsor. We fully endorse the need for a mechanism for monitoring the actions emanating from the results of research in order to validate the benefit of this research. However, it is not clear who should do this. This is not a question that should be left dangling; it needs urgently to be addressed by an expert forum to find a way forward.
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 | 0,010 | 0,002 |
| 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 | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».