Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The British Prime Minister in his introduction to a recent government White Paper said, creates unprecedented new opportunities and risk and White Paper goes on to state that making globalization work for world's poor is a moral imperative and a first-order priority for British Government (1). At highest level of government, then, globalization, including its impact on health, is seen as a imperative, albeit outward-focused, helping to eliminate world poverty. The Nuffield Trust, an independent charitable foundation established in 1940, was one of organizations in United Kingdom to ask at an early stage--in context of its programme on the changing role of state and machinery of government for health policy -- whether globalization was extending to health and health care. In 1997 Secretary of Trust addressed Annual Meeting of Association of Academic Health Centers in Palm Springs on this subject, and in 1998 Trust supported a delegation drawn from Royal Colleges, National Health Service, universities, senior policy-makers, key opinion-leaders and mass media to attend a trilateral conference (UK, USA and Canada) in Washington DC. At conclusion of meeting UK participants saw need to stimulate UK and international action on globalization and health because of moral and ethical imperatives for action rather than for primarily national or bilateral interests. On returning to UK, group became Steering Group for Health A Local Issue review -- an analysis with a view to action -- which culminated in a national conference funded by Trust and held jointly with Royal College of Physicians on 31 January 2000. The framework adopted was based on work of Dr Kelley Lee. It describes globalization as a process that is changing nature of human interaction across many spheres, particularly those of politics and institutions, economics and trade, social and cultural life, and environment and technology. It is changing temporal, spatial and conceptual boundaries that separate individuals in society. During programme 14 seminars and workshops were held and 18 papers were presented (2), covering: health and environment; economy, trade and aid; social and cultural factors; institutional and political issues; uncertainty and global health risks; local perspectives of global health; working with industry for global health; and development of a framework, including a practical model for UK action on global health. The conference endorsed framework, following which a number of significant events have taken place: a UK Partnership for Global Health was established; a web site and network contact was established for those interested in field to exchange contributions (3); members of Partnership contributed to UK Foresight Report, particularly on trade and health (4); members of Partnership did research for UK White Paper on implications of globalization for health of poor, women's health and caring professions; and a Centre for Health, Environment and Climate Change was established at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Further areas for analysis Globalization and health is now a priority area for government in UK. …
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».