Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the evolving healthcare sector, the focus on health equity has led to interventions that, despite good intentions, often fall short. Recognized by a broad spectrum of healthcare professionals, including numerous social workers, as marginally better than inaction—colloquially referred to as “better than nothing,” these efforts risk overshadowing deeper structural and systemic issues. Consequently, they divert attention from the need for comprehensive solutions that genuinely address the roots of healthcare inequities. This manuscript delves into the nuanced interplay between health equity and equality through the methodology of critical analysis, drawing on the insights of critical social work and relevant theories of justice and power. While contemporary discussions increasingly restrict equality to uniform resource distribution, the core of social justice emphasizes equality’s deeper significance: recognizing the inherent worth of every individual, regardless of their background. The primary objective of this article is to advocate for the “resuscitation” of equality in healthcare, aligning it alongside health equity to ensure a comprehensive approach for individuals and families. A reductionist view of equality may cloud essential structural health determinants and compromise truly equitable care. The ramifications for social work are clear: a fervent advocacy for both equality and equity is indispensable. By embracing equity and equality in their most nuanced dimensions, we ensure that individuals, irrespective of their unique circumstances, receive care that is both just and tailored, elevating the benchmark in healthcare delivery.
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 | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".