RETHINKING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN HEALTH; THE SOUTH ASIAN EXPERIENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of community participation gained universal attention with its formalization in the Alma Ata Conference focusing on Primary Health Care held in 1978. Thereafter the concept has attracted many a health planners, activists and policy makers. Following Alma Ata declaration, global frameworks on health, especially the Ottawa charter for Health promotion, 1986 and Jakarta Declaration, 1997 gave thrust to the concept of community participation in health. The participating countries of these conferences and member nations of WHO were urged to frame national programmes and policies on health focusing on community participation. Furthermore, the debates and discourses around social capital and civic engagement within the development community supported by the international agencies like World Bank made community involvement through civic participation an integral part of any development efforts, especially in health promotion. Community participation was thus identified as the ‘grant panacea’ for all the problems relating to health promotion, especially for poor access. So this paper, taking into consideration the concept of community participation in health, within the framework of social capital discusses the country level experiences around community participation in health across South Asian countries and tries to analyse the lacunae in viewing community participation as built through ‘civic engagement’ and ‘social networking’, without taking into consideration, the ingrained social differentials of power on the basis of caste, class and gender.
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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".