Science Has to Take Responsibility. 10 Years World Health Summit—The Road to Better Health for All
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Science has to take responsibility!Our common future is already determined by research and by new technologies emerging from new knowledge, and this process continues to gain speed.We have to make sure that today's amazing developments are used to benefit all of humankind.This is what people expect from the progress.Health and wellbeing is what people are most concerned about.Health may be a human right but when it comes to health, the world is in a worrisome state despite all the great progress, which we have seen in the past years.Infectious diseases and pandemic preparedness remain on the world agenda but the chief causes of death are now shifting dramatically to non-communicable diseases.The burden of disease of e.g., obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and mental health are increasing in all countries around the globe-rich and poor.In addition food and nutrition, pollution, climate change, political instability in many regions, economic crisis, migration, and flight are all contributing factors in major health issues.Meanwhile, the world's population continues to grow and to age.The global burden of disease remains, and is even on the rise in some areas.Equity remains a challenge.This may not be completely new but it is urgent for us to act.Climate is just one example that action is needed-now!We are not making good use of our scientific and technological possibilities and we are not living up to the expectations of the generations of our children and grandchildren.Ever since the first World Health Summit on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, we have been working toward one goal: improving health for everyone on the planet.We have to respond to the most important global health challenges, and must find fast and efficient ways to bring medical advances to the places where people are in need.But each of us can do very little alone.That's why from the beginning, the World Health Summit has brought together stakeholders and decision-makers from every sector, from all over the world.By combining forces from academia, the private sector, industry, civil society, and politics, we have been able to achieve change and improve health worldwide.And there are now some very promising leads on how we can do even more.The "M8 Alliance" of 25 Academic Health Centers and Universities around the globe and the 130 Academies of Medicine and Sciences in the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) provide a unique think tank for the World Health Summit program in academic freedom.We try to help setting the global health agenda including the G7/G20 Summits and stimulating the building up of global
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 | 0.028 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.035 |
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".