Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated, the promise of achieving respect for the human rights, health and well being of all is becoming an ever more distant prospect. We have not even remotely met the challenge of improving health for a large proportion of the world's population, and the prospects for improving global health seem to be receding in the current deteriorating economic and political climate. As global health remains one of the most pressing problems of our time, we must question the values that direct our actions and current approaches, which proclaim 'human rights to health' but which subsume these rights to a broader paradigm of unregulated global market economics and national politics, rather than working to make these oft-contradictory goals mutually compatible through justifiable and accountable global governance processes. We suggest that a new balance of values and new ways of thinking and acting are needed. These must transcend national and institutional boundaries and recognise that health in the most privileged nations is closely linked to health and disease in impoverished countries. Sustainable development of health and well-being is a necessity for all, and values for health should permeate every area of social and economic activity.
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 | 0.030 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".