Health and human rights in scientific literature: a systematic review over a decade.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, the health and human rights movement has become a public health actor that cannot and should not be ignored when defining public health policies. Little has been published about the scientific contribution of the movement, be it in terms of volume, topics, content, diffusion channels, production, or target sites. OBJECTIVE: This article aims to characterize the scientific production of articles focusing on "health and human rights" and to describe its evolution over a decade. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was done. The following databases were considered: Medline, Embase, BDSP, Wholis, Saphir, Rero and Web of Science. The analysis focused on English and French contributions published between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2008. RESULTS: Nine hundred twenty eight articles, published in 377 different journals, were reviewed. Among these articles, 43.7% had been written by one author and 56.3% by two or more authors. Over the studied decade, the production volume increased threefold. Most frequent developed topics were related to health systems (18.3%), mental health (11.5%), HIV/AIDS (10.3%), reproductive health (9.2%). Emerging topics included: the rights of patients (2.7%), new technologies (2.5%), and handicap (2.5%). Studies were classified according to their design in social analysis (42.7%), reviews of the literature (19.8%), qualitative studies (17.9%), editorials (12.5%), epidemiological studies (6.8%). Most studies were published in public health (34.5%) and biomedical journals (29.0%), while some appeared in social science journals (4.7%). The studies were related to global issues/settings (43.9%) or more specifically to country settings, for example, the United States (9.3%), Great Britain (7.8%), South Africa (3.3%), Australia (3.0%), Canada (2.6%), France (2.3%), and India (1.9%). The authors were mainly from industrialized countries. CONCLUSION: The publication of articles on health and human rights issues is increasing, and new topics are being addressed. Yet more evidence-based studies might be necessary to scientifically strengthen the domain.
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 | 0.033 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.050 | 0.059 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".