Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: To develop a definition of the discipline of Remote Health. Design: A broad literature search using key words and an Internet search of industry‐recognised web sites were carried out. Results: Fifty‐five relevant citations and nine web sites were reviewed, covering Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and United States. The papers offered a variety of definitions of geographical and practice‐based approaches to ‘remoteness’, and definitions of ‘remote and rural health’. Conclusions: None of the single current definitions in the literature adequately reflect all of the characteristics of Remote Health in Australia. A definition is offered: Remote Health is an emerging discipline with distinct sociological, historical and practice characteristics. Its practice in Australia is characterised by geographical, professional and, often, social isolation of practitioners; a strong multidisciplinary approach; overlapping and changing roles of team members; a relatively high degree of GP substitution; and practitioners requiring public health, emergency and extended clinical skills. These skills and remote health systems, need to be suited to working in a cross‐cultural context; serving small, dispersed and often highly mobile populations; serving populations with relatively high health needs; and a physical environment of climatic extremes. What this paper adds?: In Australia and internationally there are a variety of measures of rurality and remoteness, which have focused on geographical or medical practice‐based sociodemographic factors, often related to remuneration scales. With an increasing recognition of and interest in the distinction between ‘Rural Health’ and ‘Remote Health’, there needs to be a better understanding of the characteristics of the emerging discipline of Remote Health which distinguish it from Rural Health practice. This paper searched the international literature for a meaningful definition of Remote Health in the Australian context. There was not one single, appropriate definition, but the information uncovered has contributed to the development of a definition that can inform the work of educators, researchers and policy‐makers, and give appropriate recognition to Remote Health practitioners.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".