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 original and innovative book opens up new perspectives in health policy debate, examining the emerging international trends in the governance of health professions and the significance of national contexts for the changing health workforce. In bringing together research from a wide range of continental European countries as well as the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, the contributors highlight different arenas of governance, as well as the various players involved in the policy process. They expand the public debate on professional governance - hitherto mainly limited to medical self-regulation - to encompass a broad span of health care providers, from nurses and midwives to alternative therapists and health support workers. The book provides new data and geopolitical perspectives in the debate over how to govern health care. It helps to better understand both the enabling conditions for, and the barriers to, making professionals more accountable to the interests of a changing public. This book will be a valuable resource for students at an undergraduate and postgraduate level, particularly for health programmes, sociology of professions and comparative health policy, but also for academics, researchers and managers working in health care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it