Part 1 – unravelling primary health care conceptual predicaments through the lenses of complexity and political economy: a position paper for progressive transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To disentangle the concepts of primary health care and primary care as well as their conceptual and empirical ramifications for progressive transformation. METHODS: over 400 international and interdisciplinary abstracts and papers with 96 annotated bibliography abstracts of literature across multiple dimensions relating to the knowledge base around mechanisms in PHC development were reviewed. The text is confronted with the reality, as it exists in the field and makes the case for complexity perspectives to assess this phenomenon in its context. CONCLUSION: PHC complexity is an important analytical tool to interrogate the ways in which this phenomenon is socially constructed as well as in the matrices in which it is embedded. It is also a potent analytical tool to assist in the deconstruction of prevalent linear thinking built around PHC as a whole.
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 | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".