Community Health Global Network and Sustainable Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the achievements, failures and passing of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), the world has turned its eyes to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), designed to foster sustainable social, economic and environmental development over the next 15 years.(1) Community-led initiatives are increasingly being recognised as playing a key role in realising sustainable community development and in the aspirations of universal healthcare.(2) In many parts of the world, faith-based organisations are some of the main players in community-led development and health care.(3) Community Health Global Network (CHGN) creates links between organisations, with the purpose being to encourage communities to recognise their assets and abilities, identify shared concerns and discover solutions together, in order to define and lead their futures in sustainable ways.(4) CHGN has facilitated the development of collaborative groups of health and development initiatives called ‘Clusters’ in several countries including India, Bangladesh, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Myanmar. In March 2016 these Clusters met together in an International Forum, to share learnings, experiences, challenges, achievements and to encourage one another. Discussions held throughout the forum suggest that the CHGN model is helping to promote effective, sustainable development and health care provision on both a local and a global scale.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.119 | 0.016 |
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".