Mutuality in Scottish healthcare: Leading for public good
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers an alternative paradigm to healthcare, and its delivery, by introducing the concepts of mutuality and empowerment into the existing NHS model of a public health system. In this paper, we will: revisit what is meant by mutuality; advance the meaning of the ‘public interest’ in this context; explore empowerment and community empowerment and their relationship to health; and introduce leading for the public good, which links these concepts and terms together via a dual development approach. It is suggested that this dual development approach will enable policy makers, practitioners in the NHS, and citizens to explore and evolve ways of leading and managing a mutual NHS, with public interest fora becoming the engines that will lead the development of mutuality. Our approach has not been taken from an observation of practice as such; rather, we suggest it as something to pursue as a consequence of theoretical reasoning applied to observations of practice in terms of policy ideas and outcomes of varied healthcare models that suggest inadequacies with existing approaches. It is hoped that this analysis will help researchers and practitioners alike to appreciate further the important concept of mutuality, and to suggest the importance of empowerment and leadership into the existing public health system paradigm.
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 | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".