Health at the Center of Health Systems Reform: How Philosophy Can Inform Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary views hold that health and disease can be defined as objective states and thus should determine the design and delivery of health services. Yet health concepts are elusive and contestable. Health is neither an individual construction, a reflection of societal expectations, nor only the absence of pathologies. Based on philosophical and sociological theory, empirical evidence, and clinical experience, we argue that health has simultaneously objective and subjective features that converge into a dynamic complex-adaptive health model. Health (or its dysfunction, illness) is a dynamic state representing complex patterns of adaptation to body, mind, social, and environmental challenges, resulting in bodily homeostasis and personal internal coherence. The "balance of health" model-emergent, self-organizing, dynamic, and adaptive-underpins the very essence of medicine. This model should be the foundation for health systems design and also should inform therapeutic approaches, policy decision-making, and the development of emerging health service models. A complex adaptive health system focused on achieving the best possible "personal" health outcomes must provide the broad policy frameworks and resources required to implement people-centered health care. People-centered health systems are emergent in nature, resulting in locally different but mutually compatible solutions across the whole health system.
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 | 0.053 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.102 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".