Optimization of scientific research of theoretical and methodological foundations of the formation of a culture of personal health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: to optimize the scientific search for theoretical and methodological foundations of personal health culture formation by conducting a comprehensive bibliometric analysis in the Scopus database. Materials and methods. To achieve this goal, the bibliometric analysis of publications in the Scopus scientometric database was used. An analytical query was formed with keywords reflecting the concepts of ‘culture of personal health’, ‘theoretical and methodological foundations’, ‘health care’, etc. Quantitative indicators (dynamics of publications, distribution by industry, geography, and authors) and bibliometric metrics (CiteScore, SIR, SNIP) were selected and analyzed. Results. 828 scientific publications were identified, 538 of which were published in the last decade, which indicates the actualisation of the problem of health culture formation in the modern scientific space. Most researches are related to the medical field, social sciences, and engineering, which emphasises the interdisciplinary nature of the topic. The leading countries in terms of the number of publications are the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and China. The largest number of sources falls on recent years, which reflects the growing interest in health promotion, in particular, in the context of global challenges. Conclusions. The results of the study confirm the growing attention to the formation of a culture of personal health as an important component of preventive medicine, education, and social initiatives. The identified trend towards the integration of various fields of knowledge opens up additional prospects for the development of comprehensive methods and strategies in the field of health promotion. In the future, it is advisable to carry out an in-depth analysis of the qualitative aspects of publications, as well as to develop scientifically sound recommendations for the implementation of appropriate approaches in practice. No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.
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 | 0.144 | 0.308 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.047 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".