MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206144574 · doi:10.23880/jqhe-16000217

Health in All Policies: Management Model for the Comprehensive Transformation of the System

2021· article· en· W4206144574 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jorge Mandl Stangl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Quality in Health Care & Economics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Health and Social Inequalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentCharterDecentralizationPolitical scienceCorporate governancePublic administrationPublic relationsEquity (law)Health promotionPoliticsHealth careSociologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

he essay explores the components of the approach health in all policies as a management model based on primary health care and its basic principles for health promotion described in the Ottawa Charter and the Adelaide Declaration: citizen participation and community empowerment, intersectorality, personal skills development, timely technologies and governance processes on social determinants of health. In this sense, we propose the transformation of the health system based on the construction of a comprehensive program for the strengthening of the organization through mechanisms of collaboration between the State and the Society, privileging equity and justice in defense of human rights. The document collects lessons learned from practices on the development and strengthening of “Sistemas Locales de Salud” and the Project “Municipios Hacia la Salud” in Venezuela (1989-2000), as well as experiences in other countries. The proposal is presented as a management model for the design, implementation, and governance of redistributive policies with a perspective of multisectoral strategic plan. We conclude that to be effective and efficient, these initiatives need better processes of political and functional decentralization, strong political and executive leadership, inclusive citizen participation, integrality between health and social goals and objectives, consensual planning between society and governments and; continuous accompaniment, monitoring and evaluation.

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)0.008
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.005
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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Quality in Health Care & EconomicsSame topicPublic Health and Social InequalitiesFrench-language works237,207