A theoretical proposal for the relationship between context and disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of ‘context’ are increasingly widespread. These studies often become entrenched in methodological debates rather than being conceptually satisfying. We suggest that part of the problem lies in an inappropriate use of ‘classic’ methods used by epidemiologists to study context and that it may be useful to study, instead, the relationship between agency (the ability for people to deploy a range of causal powers), practices (the activities that make and transform the world we live in) and social structure (the rules and resources in society). We utilise two examples from the current literature to illustrate these problems; the study of lifestyles and social inequalities in disease outcomes. We develop the notion of collective lifestyles as a tentative solution, inspired by Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social action, Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory and Amartya Sen’s capability theory. Collective lifestyles are defined as an expression of a shared way of relating and acting in a given environment. It is proposed that context is created by relationships between people.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".