Public health and the life satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern health care brings to attention the quality of life, because people want to live a full, active and effective life throughout the life cycle, not just to survive in the event of illness. According to this understanding of quality of life including functional ability, the degree of social integration, psychological well-being, somatic characteristics and overall satisfaction with their lives. The main objective of this paper is to review the main elements of health and quality of life and life satisfaction. All this was seen by the territorial parts of Serbia, settlement type, sex and age, education, and prosperous state. Achieving the goal of this paper, a large-scale data were analyzed of research survey conducted by the Institute of Public Health of Serbia. The results showed that 23.6% of the population of Serbia see their health as good, 31.8% as average, and 38% as poor and very poor. That health is the same as the previous year is considered 55.7%, and 25% worse. About 39% of them believe that they are responsible for their own health, especially men. The proper attitude of responsibility for their own health has a quarter of school children and 24.4% of the adult population, mostly in Belgrade and other urban settlements, men younger age, better educated and wealthier population. Like most of life s worth of school children considered politics, business, religion and so on. And the adult population also puts the politics, then business, religion and so on, and at last put health. As a reason for dissatisfaction with current life of school children in the first place the financial situation, then school/business, political situation, etc. And adults also financial situation, the political situation, job, health, etc. These attitudes are more pronounced in the rural villages, men, less educated and poorer residents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".