Inequalities in health – the needs of the residents of Polish cities expressed in Participatory Budget projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AMA Wolszon M, Zając M, Tyrańska-Fobke A. Inequalities in health – the needs of the residents of Polish cities expressed in Participatory Budget projects. Journal of Health Inequalities. 2023. doi:10.5114/jhi.2023.131224. APA Wolszon, M., Zając, M., & Tyrańska-Fobke, A. (2023). Inequalities in health – the needs of the residents of Polish cities expressed in Participatory Budget projects. Journal of Health Inequalities. https://doi.org/10.5114/jhi.2023.131224 Chicago Wolszon, Monika, Monika Zając, and Anna Tyrańska-Fobke. 2023. "Inequalities in health – the needs of the residents of Polish cities expressed in Participatory Budget projects". Journal of Health Inequalities. doi:10.5114/jhi.2023.131224. Harvard Wolszon, M., Zając, M., and Tyrańska-Fobke, A. (2023). Inequalities in health – the needs of the residents of Polish cities expressed in Participatory Budget projects. Journal of Health Inequalities. https://doi.org/10.5114/jhi.2023.131224 MLA Wolszon, Monika et al. "Inequalities in health – the needs of the residents of Polish cities expressed in Participatory Budget projects." Journal of Health Inequalities, 2023. doi:10.5114/jhi.2023.131224. Vancouver Wolszon M, Zając M, Tyrańska-Fobke A. Inequalities in health – the needs of the residents of Polish cities expressed in Participatory Budget projects. Journal of Health Inequalities. 2023. doi:10.5114/jhi.2023.131224.
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 | 0.022 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".