Rol de la evidencia científica en las políticas publicas relacionadas con los sistemas de salud.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existen diferentes modelos para explicar cómo la evidencia de la investigación se utiliza en los procesos de formulación de políticas sobre los sistemas de salud. En este artículo argumentamos que los modelos que se desarrollaron desde el contexto clínico, como el de políticas basadas en la evidencia, pueden ser útiles en algunas decisiones políticas. Sin embargo, debido a su “silencio” sobre el contexto político, estos modelos son incompatibles con las decisiones relacionadas con la modificación de los arreglos de los sistemas de salud. Otros modelos, generados desde las ciencias políticas, son más útiles para entender que la investigación es uno solo de los factores que afecta la toma de decisiones y que diferentes tipos de evidencia científica pueden ser utilizados de manera instrumental, conceptual o estratégica en diferentes etapas del proceso de formulación de políticas.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.087 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".