The Emerging Landscape of Health Communication in Asia: Theoretical Contributions, Methodological Questions, and Applied Collaborations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health communication programs in Thailand are tiered into local, regional, and international levels. On the local level, the Thai Health Promotion Foundation and Thai Research Fund constructed a vast Thai research infrastructure that supports universities in conducting health communication projects. For example, with the help of the fund, together with Health Systems Research and Thai Health Promotion Foundation (ThaiHealth), Mahidol University???s Research Insitute for Languages and Cultures of Asia established the Communication for Development Research Group to work on projects of health communication procedures and applications for children???s health projects, broadcasting to communities, and local health participations. ThaiHealth has collaborated with neigboring countries, such as Malaysia, Korea, and Laos, for health promotional programs. For example, with the support of the World Health Organization, ThaiHealth???s Social Marketing Section invited the Ministry of Healthcare and Nutrition of Sri Lanka to exchange views and experiences in health communication. On the international level, the Canada-based International Development Research Centre has developed the Health Systems Research Institute in Bangkok, Thailand, to work with the National Research Council of Thailand, the Ministry of Public Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Chiang Mai University, and Ubon Ratchathani University to provide technical and organizational support for mass media and health communication projects.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it