Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time for a changeTen years have passed since I agreed to help Blackwell Science launch a new journal covering all aspects of patient and public participation in health care and health policy.You could find research papers on this topic at that time, but they were widely dispersed across a large number of journals and there was no central focus for creative development and critical debate.We felt a specialist journal was needed to fill the gap.The first issue of Health Expectations appeared in June 1998.This set the international tone with research papers on the use of evidence by Norwegian patient organisations, papers from Canada and the USA on patient decision aids for breast cancer and coronary angiography, and one from the Netherlands on what patients can do to improve health care.Julian Tudor Hart kicked it off with a stimulating article on the development of health systems in the US and UK.He called for revolutionary change in the way care is conceived, organized and resourced by making professionals accountable to patients as their intelligent partners.1 Since then we have published 36 issues containing more than 250 papers from around the world on a wide variety of topics.The theory and practice of shared decision-making and the use and effects of patient decision aids has been a very strong theme, but other issues such as lay involvement in service development and priority-setting, the activities of patient organisations, information and communications, and patient participation in research have attracted a large number of high quality submissions.We have learnt a great deal since the journal was launched.We now have a better understanding of patientsÕ information preferences and of the circumstances in which they want to
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 | 0.039 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.061 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.081 | 0.038 |
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".