Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction If one identified the primary health problems facing the world today based on the public pronouncements of governmental authorities and media coverage, one would assume these would be epidemics and pandemics of infectious diseases, most immediately those concerned with avian (SARS) and swine flu (HlNl). In reality, the primary health problem facing the world is the absence of health equity. Health equity represents a situation where unfair or unjust differences in health status are not present. The lack of health equity-or the presence of health inequity-is inferred when there are inequalities in health that are unnecessary. It is increasingly being recognised that these inequalities in health result from inequalities in living conditions that reflect power imbalances in society. Sociologists use the term 'social inequalities' to describe these power imbalances in society and their related outcomes. Not only do social inequalities create what is arguably the most pressing health issue in most societies today - the presence of health inequalities - these social inequalities also permeate the issues of infectious disease epidemics and pandemics which have come to so dominate our current consciousness. In this themed issue on population health in the twenty-first century, we bring together eight articles that illustrate two key points: 1) the primary health issue facing societies is the presence of health inequalities which are the result of social inequalities; and 2) the concern with epidemics and pandemics is itself influenced by the existence of these same social inequalities. The first two articles explore the issue of epidemics and pandemics. The following six explore the broader issue of health inequalities and their manifestation in developed and developing nations with special focus on Australia, Canada, and the United States. Health Equity Global interest in promoting health equity has become a key issue in the twenty-first century. What factors enhance the health of populations? What are the causes of disease? And what are the causes of the causes? These questions have led to a focus on what has come to be known as the social determinants of health (SDOH), that is, the living and working conditions to which people are exposed (CSDH 2008). Specific social determinants of health that have been shown to be important are income and wealth, housing, food, education, and access to health care and social services, among others (Raphael 2009). It is also becoming increasingly clear that political ideology and public policies fundamentally shape the quality of the social determinants of health to which citizens have access (Bryant 2010). Adverse social determinants of health such as income, housing, and food insecurity, insecurity of precarious employment, and poor working conditions are usually the result of poor public policymaking. Indeed, the Commission on Social Determinants of Health of the World Health Organisation states: [t]his unequal distribution of health-damaging experiences is not in any sense a 'natural' phenomenon but is the result of a toxic combination of poor social policies and programmes, unfair economic arrangements, and bad politics. Together, the structural determinants and conditions of daily life constitute the social determinants of health and are responsible for a major part of health inequities between and within countries (2008, 1). Improving the quality and access to social health promoting social determinants of health is a key means of fostering health equity. The social determinants of health concept is a bridge between public policy and achieving health equity. Health equity has multiple meanings (Braveman and Gruskin 2003; Kawachi et al. 2002). The definition of the term to which this themed issue subscribes is concern with the quality and equitable distribution of the social determinants of health (Graham 2004). …
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".