MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071024449 · doi:10.1080/17441690601010217

The behavioural research agenda in global health: An advocate's legacy

2007· article· en· W2071024449 on OpenAlexaff
Marcia C. Inhorn, Craig R. Janes

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Public Health · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicZoonotic diseases and public health
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPublic healthSociologyPoliticsGlobal healthContext (archaeology)Social scienceMedical anthropologyEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceHistoryMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two of the disciplines that have come to infuse global health with some of its current vibrancy are epidemiology and anthropology, disciplines that focus, in one way or another, on the causal importance of human behaviour in socio-political, ecological, evolutionary, and cultural context. One of the little-known stories in the history of twentieth century global health involves the works of a number of pioneering interdisciplinary scholar-practitioners, who urged a synthesis of epidemiological and anthropological perspectives in what was then called 'tropical medicine'. One of these pioneers was Frederick L. Dunn, who forwarded lasting insights about the importance of human behavioural research in understanding infectious disease. This article provides a historical-biographical accounting of Dunn's contributions to public health in the second half of the twentieth century, arguing that his persistent advocacy of multi-level, social behavioural research and his notion of 'causal assemblages' were critical in the early development of the twentieth century discipline of global health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.102
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1020.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0110.071
Scholarly communication0.0170.017
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0250.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.205
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Public HealthSame topicZoonotic diseases and public healthFrench-language works237,207