MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205248773 · doi:10.29057/mbr.v3i6.8065

The appropriateness of health education

2022· article· en· W4205248773 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arianne Rionda Arjona

Bibliographic record

VenueMexican Bioethics Review ICSA · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Lifestyle Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionHealth educationHealth careSubject (documents)Ideal (ethics)Control (management)Process (computing)MedicinePublic relationsNursingPsychologyGerontologyPolitical sciencePublic healthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subject of the present dissertation is to emphasize the importance of promoting and using the Health Education Theory and strategies, as an advance that manages to overcome the models that are used within patient care, through traditional methods, which focus on diseases, their prevention and treatments if they are present, giving priority to research to care for diseases, thus only fighting against morbid processes, which have already manifested themselves, from the level prevention or care. The Health Education is a strategy established in Ottawa, Canada in 1986, at the First World Conference on Health Promotion, where it is defined as: the process that provides individuals and communities with the means necessary to exercise greater control over their own health and thus be able to improve it, with its motto "Health for all in the year 2000", which has remained a utopian ideal at this time, still implies a challenge for the new Century and the changes in the comprehensive health approach.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.032
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.211
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMexican Bioethics Review ICSASame topicHealth and Lifestyle StudiesFrench-language works237,207