Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the huge differences between developing and developed countries, access is the major issue in rural health around the world. Even in the countries where the majority of the population lives in rural areas, the resources are concentrated in the cities. All countries have difficulties with transport and communication, and they all face the challenge of shortages of doctors and other health professionals in rural and remote areas. Many rural people are caught in the poverty- ill health-low productivity downward spiral, particularly in developing countries. Since 1992, WONCA, the World Organization of Family Doctors, has developed a specific focus on rural health through the WONCA Working Party on Rural Practice. This Working Party has drawn national and international attention to major rural health issues through World Rural Health Conferences and WONCA Rural Policies. The World Health Organization (WHO) has broadened its focus beyond public health to partnership with family practice, initially through a landmark WHO-WONCA Invitational Conference in Canada. From this has developed the Memorandum of Agreement between WONCA and WHO which emphasizes the important role of family practitioners in primary health care and also includes the Rural Health Initiative. In April 2002, WHO and WONCA held a major WHO-WONCA Invitational Conference on Rural Health. This conference addressed the immense challenges for improving the health of people of rural and remote areas of the world and initiated a specific action plan: The Global Initiative on Rural Health. The "Health for All" vision for rural people is more likely to be achieved through joint concerted efforts of international and national bodies working together with doctors, nurses and other health workers in rural areas around the world.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
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".