Towards a Common Understanding of the Health Sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of health sciences is to maintain and improve the health of individuals and populations and to limit disability. Health research has expanded astoundingly over the last century and a variety of scientific disciplines rooted in very different scientific and intellectual traditions has contributed to these goals. To allow health scientists to fully contextualize their work and engage in interdisciplinary research, a common understanding of the health sciences is needed. The aim of this paper is to respond to the call of the 1986 Ottawa Charter to improve health care by looking both within and beyond health and health care, and to use the opportunity offered by WHO's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) for a universal operationalization of health, in order to develop a common understanding and conceptualization of the field of health sciences that account for its richness and vitality. METHODS: A critical analysis of health sciences based on WHO's ICF, on WHO's definition of health systems and on the content and methodological approaches promoted by the biological, clinical and socio-humanistic traditions engaged in health research. RESULTS: The field of health sciences is presented according to: 1) a specification of the content of the field in terms of people's health needs and the societal response to them, 2) a meta-level framework to exhaustively represent the range of mutually recognizable scientific disciplines engaged in health research and 3) a heuristic framework for the specification of a set of shared methodological approaches relevant across the range of these disciplines. CONCLUSION: This conceptualization of health sciences is offered to contextualize the work of health researchers, thereby fostering interdisciplinarity.
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 | 0.161 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.111 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".