MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624454570 · doi:10.7202/1034840ar

Medical Modernization: A Macro Level Conceptualization of Medical Care Programs

2016· article· en· W2624454570 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David E. Hayes‐Bautista, Meredith Minkler

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernization theoryConceptualizationDisadvantagedIdeologyHealth carePopulationPoliticsSociologyPolitical scienceEconomic growthMedicineEconomicsLawComputer scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors seek to conceptualize the assumptions underlying the theoretical models of medical modernization. They note that the implantation of a rational and scientific health care system has often meant simply copying western models. The application of medical modernization models is examined in relation to marginal and disadvantaged groups in the United States as well as developing countries. The authors attempt to identify the general characteristics of these programmes and to evaluate the outcomes. The main outcomes of the transplantation of this model are seen as: For the purposes of comparison, the authors briefly examine another model which they term "health development". This models indicates that a general improvement in the health of the population depends as much on economic, political, ideological and technological factors as health care itself. Drawing on examples from China and Cuba, the authors note the importance of a more equitable distribution of goods, power and participation in the process of improving health. They conclude by stressing the necessity to carefully wegh the effects of importing modern medical practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.016
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207