Equity, social determinants and public health programmes - the case of oral health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health issued the 2008 report 'Closing the gap within a generation - health equity through action on the social determinants of health' in response to the widening gaps, within and between countries, in income levels, opportunities, life expectancy, health status, and access to health care. Most individuals and societies, irrespective of their philosophical and ideological stance, have limits as to how much unfairness is acceptable. In 2010, WHO published another important report on 'Equity, Social Determinants and Public Health Programmes', with the aim of translating knowledge into concrete, workable actions. Poor oral health was flagged as a severe public health problem. Oral disease and illness remain global problems and widening inequities in oral health status exist among different social groupings between and within countries. The good news is that means are available for breaking poverty and reduce if not eliminate social inequalities in oral health. Whether public health actions are initiated simply depends on the political will. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986) and subsequent charters have emphasized the importance of policy for health, healthy environments, healthy lifestyles, and the need for orientation of health services towards health promotion and disease prevention. This report advocates that oral health for all can be promoted effectively by applying this philosophy and some major public health actions are outlined.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".