Contexto actual de la atención primaria : dificultades y oportunidades para las actividades comunitarias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aunque la practica comunitaria forma parte inherente de la concepcion de Atencion Primaria de Salud, su desarrollo en Espanaha sido escaso, con un caracter aislado y minoritario. Existe una discordancia entre las declaraciones institucionales que avalan lo comunitario y su escaso desarrollo real. Todo ello ha contribuido al desprestigio de lo comunitario, quedando para muchos como algo inviable, utopico; y su escaso desarrollo confirma en el imaginario de los profesionales como innecesario y sin relacion con su perfil profesional. La implantacion del modelo de AP se realizo con importantes deficits que explican esta situacion: hubo vacios teoricos, metodologicos y practicos respecto a las actividades comunitarias: Desconocimiento de los marcos conceptuales de la actividad comunitaria, de la argumentacion de su pertinencia y necesidad pese a que son avaladas por organismos tan prestigiosos como la OMS, en sus conferencias de Ottawa, Yakarta, y Adelaida. No se han difundido entre los profesionales las herramientas metodologicas para la promocion de la salud, y las escasas experiencias han permanecido demasiado tiempo aisladas y sin reconocimiento.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".