The Commission on Social Determinants of Health: mainstreaming social inequalities in public health education in India.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The final report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health (SDH) has been the subject of analysis and policy discussions since its release in August 2008. Keeping in mind some of the early reviews of this report, the time has come to evaluate the pathways, both academic and political, that need to be mobilized to address this report in its fullest measure. As the dissemination of the report enters a new phase, its interpretation and reception in diverse policy arenas gains in importance, and its prioritization by key state and non-state agencies will need to be critically mapped and advocated in the near future. To address this, we need to recapitulate the strengths and implications of the report, as well as its national pathways. 1 The report focuses on the importance of achieving health equity at a time when inequalities have increased within and across countries. Several western European countries, Canada and even the US have expressed concern over the rising inequalities in health. Among the developing countries, economic liberalization over the past 3 decades has impacted socioeconomic and health opportunities differentially across regions and social groups. While the upper middle classes have clearly benefited from the twin processes of globalization and liberalization, other sections of the middle class and the organized and unorganized working classes have not benefited to a similar degree. Given the variations in the levels of inequality within and across countries, this report reaffirms the need to acknowledge the relationship between society and health, and upholds the principles of social justice. It states that the ‘commission’s vision is a world in which all people have the freedom to lead lives they have reason to value. This is a matter of social justice. Health and its key determinants are an issue of human rights. Politically, it is vital, as the success of a society can be judged from the quality and fair distribution of its population’s health’. 2 As a first step towards achieving equity in health, the commission offers a conceptual framework drawn on the basis of a review of the theoretical frameworks that have informed this area of inquiry. In addition, it has commissioned papers on nine themes—early child development, globalization, employment conditions, social exclusion, health systems, priority public health conditions, measurement and evidence, women and gender equity, and the urban setting. These nine themes are called the knowledge networks and under each of them there is a position paper that reviews the existing literature and also offers suggestions. 3
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 | 0,027 | 0,050 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
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 ».