Is <i>Public Health Action</i> achieving its goals? [Editorial]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
from 47 countries: 41% of the articles have come from the World Health Organization's Africa Region, 32% from the South-East Asia Region, 17% from the Western Pacifi c Region, 5% from the Eastern Mediterranean Region, 3% from the Americas Region and 2% from the Europe Region.At its inception, PHA established ambitious targets for timely turnaround for review of articles.For the period evaluated, slightly more than three-quarters of articles were assigned to Associate Editors within four days of submission, and the same proportion completed the fi rst round of peer review within 31 days.While the subject matter of the journal has specifically targeted operational research, the types of services evaluated have varied substantially, from communicable diseases to women's health, child health, non-communicable diseases and neglected tropical diseases.Although PHA is still in its early stages, it appears to be proceeding according to the targets established at the outset.It focuses on health services, primarily in countries with large populations with a high proportion of poor inhabitants, it addresses a broad range of topics in public health services and it has managed to handle submissions in a timely fashion.On this basis, it should be able to expand to fi ll the broad need for critical evaluation of the operation of health systems and services.We hope it will be increasingly seen as the home of operational research, as well as a vehicle for analysing what we do in providing health solutions for the poor.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".