Expert Needs of Healthy Public Health Centre Development in the Archipelago Area of South Sulawesi
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aimed to develop the indicators of Healthy Public Health Centers in the archipelago region of South Sulawesi. This research was conducted by applying qualitative method through a literature review approach related to the construction of indicators for the model of a Healthy Public Health Center in the archipelago region. The informants involved in this study were from Health Department, Public Health Center, Social Service, Environment Service, Tourism Office, Fisheries and Marine Service, the Head of Sub- District, Sub-Village/lurah, Healthy Regency/City Forum, Healthy Sub-District Communication Forum, Working Groups at the village level, NGOs, public figure, religious leaders, academics, and other informants. This research also applied FGD and In-depth Interview. The result of this study is the discovery of dimensions consisting of indicators that make up the model of a Healthy Public Health Center in the archipelago region. The dimensions consisted of (1) Location, (2) Access, (3) Basic service program, (4) a specific program (innovation) (5) Human Resources (HR), (6) Community Empowerment, (7) Public Health Center Working Group (Pokja PKM Sehat) and (8) Archipelago Healthy Public Health Center. This study found a number of indicators of Healthy Health Centers that can be applied specifically to archipelagic areas.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it