Public health surveillance and the data, information, knowledge, intelligence and wisdom paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article points out deficiencies in present-day definitions of public health surveillance, which include data collection, analysis, interpretation and dissemination, but not public health action. Controlling a public health problem of concern requires a public health response that goes beyond information dissemination. It is undesirable to have public health divided into data generation processes (public health surveillance) and data use processes (public health response), managed by two separate groups (surveillance experts and policy-makers). It is time to rethink the need to modernize the definition of public health surveillance, inspired by the authors' enhanced Data, Information, Knowledge, Intelligence and Wisdom model. Our recommendations include expanding the scope of public health surveillance beyond information dissemination to comprise actionable knowledge (intelligence); mandating surveillance experts to assist policy-makers in making evidence-informed decisions; encouraging surveillance experts to become policy-makers; and incorporating public health literacy training - from data to knowledge to wisdom - into the curricula for all public health professionals. Work on modernizing the scope and definition of public health surveillance will be a good starting point.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".