Construyendo un marco de evaluación de la atención primaria de la salud para Latinoamérica
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
OBJECTIVE: To determinate the clarity, relevance and per tinence of a primary health care evaluation strategy for different Latin American health sub-systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This strategy was assessed using workshops held with decision makers and administrative managers from a public health organization, a social insurance and a private insurance health organization. The study took place in the province of Santa Fe (Argentina) between May 2006 and May 2007. RESULTS: The strategy was determined to be clear and relevant by all organizations, but highly applicable only in the public case. The social-insurance and private cases questioned the pertinence of objectives related to community participation, intersectoral actions and a focus on social determinants of health, in addition to considering it necessary to restrict the scope of ideas related to universal access and equity with regard to their client population. DISCUSSION: The evaluation of the pertinence of the strategy was explained by the particularities of the institutional context, as well as the goals and survival strategies used by each organization.
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 | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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