Bibliographic record
Abstract
The British Prime Minister in his introduction to a recent government White Paper said, creates unprecedented new opportunities and risk and White Paper goes on to state that making globalization work for world's poor is a moral imperative and a first-order priority for British Government (1). At highest level of government, then, globalization, including its impact on health, is seen as a imperative, albeit outward-focused, helping to eliminate world poverty. The Nuffield Trust, an independent charitable foundation established in 1940, was one of organizations in United Kingdom to ask at an early stage--in context of its programme on the changing role of state and machinery of government for health policy -- whether globalization was extending to health and health care. In 1997 Secretary of Trust addressed Annual Meeting of Association of Academic Health Centers in Palm Springs on this subject, and in 1998 Trust supported a delegation drawn from Royal Colleges, National Health Service, universities, senior policy-makers, key opinion-leaders and mass media to attend a trilateral conference (UK, USA and Canada) in Washington DC. At conclusion of meeting UK participants saw need to stimulate UK and international action on globalization and health because of moral and ethical imperatives for action rather than for primarily national or bilateral interests. On returning to UK, group became Steering Group for Health A Local Issue review -- an analysis with a view to action -- which culminated in a national conference funded by Trust and held jointly with Royal College of Physicians on 31 January 2000. The framework adopted was based on work of Dr Kelley Lee. It describes globalization as a process that is changing nature of human interaction across many spheres, particularly those of politics and institutions, economics and trade, social and cultural life, and environment and technology. It is changing temporal, spatial and conceptual boundaries that separate individuals in society. During programme 14 seminars and workshops were held and 18 papers were presented (2), covering: health and environment; economy, trade and aid; social and cultural factors; institutional and political issues; uncertainty and global health risks; local perspectives of global health; working with industry for global health; and development of a framework, including a practical model for UK action on global health. The conference endorsed framework, following which a number of significant events have taken place: a UK Partnership for Global Health was established; a web site and network contact was established for those interested in field to exchange contributions (3); members of Partnership contributed to UK Foresight Report, particularly on trade and health (4); members of Partnership did research for UK White Paper on implications of globalization for health of poor, women's health and caring professions; and a Centre for Health, Environment and Climate Change was established at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Further areas for analysis Globalization and health is now a priority area for government in UK. …
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".