Bridging the gap to meet complex needs: an intersectoral action well supported by appropriate policies and governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many people face problems about physical, mental, and social dimensions of health, and may have complex needs. They often experience a mismatch between their needs and the ability of the healthcare system to meet them, resulting in under- or overutilization of the healthcare system. On one hand, improving access to community-based primary healthcare for hard-to-reach populations should bring all healthcare and social services to one point of contact, near the community. On the other hand, better addressing the unmet needs of people who overuse healthcare services calls for integrated care among providers across all settings and sectors. In either case, intersectoral action between healthcare and social professionals and resources remains central to bringing care closer to the people and the community, enhancing equitable access, and improving health status. However, efforts to implement integrated care are unevenly weighted toward clinical and professional strategies (micro level), which could jeopardize our ability to implement and sustain integrated care. The development of appropriate policies and governance mechanisms (macro level) is essential to break down silos, promote a coherent intersectoral action, and improve health equity.
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 | 0.088 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.051 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".