Bibliographic record
Abstract
WORLD HEALTH REPORT , 2000: FROM HEALTH PROMOTION TO HEALTH SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE With much fanfare, the World Health Organization in June 2000 set out a framework for assessing and ranking the performance of health systems around the globe (WHO, 2000). The media responded to the World Health Report , 2000 by latching onto its remarkable rankings, such as the worldwide first place position of France and the relatively low ranking of the United States (thirty-seventh). Ministries of health around the world either proudly displayed their unexpectedly high rankings, used their relative positions as an argument for reform, dismissed the exercise as an invidious “health Olympics,” or else immediately expressed concern about the quality of the data, or the methodology, that the WHO relied on. For their part, academics began to pick apart the methodology and the advisability of the ranking exercise, while rehearsing arguments for and against the various components of the framework. On its release, WHO Director General Gro Harlan Bruntland insisted that the WHO was committed to its assessment framework and planned yearly recalculations based on more valid and reliable country-level data. A few months later, facing a minor rebellion at the executive board meeting, some of Bruntland's enthusiasm was muted as she allowed that many of the concepts and measures used in the exercise “require refinement and development.” The Report represents a shift in WHO's health promotion agenda. Two decades earlier, in the joint WHO/UNESCO Declaration of Alma-Ata (1978), universal access to primary health care was presented as the key to achieving “health for all” within the century.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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; 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".