Co-operation and working together for health gain and social well being in border areas.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In July 1992, the North Eastern and North \nWestern Health Boards in the Republic of Ireland \nand the Southern and Western Health and Social \nServices Boards in Northern Ireland entered into a \nformal agreement known as the Ballyconnell \nAgreement (see Appendix I) to co-operate in \nimproving the health and social wellbeing of their \nresident populations, This agreement was revised \nin 1998 to take account of the purchaser/provider \nsplit when the Northern Ireland Health and Social \nServices Boards were reorganised into \nCommissioner Boards and Provider Trusts were \nestablished as separate statutory organisations. \nCo-operation and Working Together (CAWT) \ncovers the whole of the land boundary between \nthe Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom \nand between them they comprise a population of \none million. It has been suggested that people \nliving in the vicinity of the border are materially \ndisadvantaged on account of low levels of \neconomic activity, rurality and geographical \nisolation. Research lends weight to this view with \ndeprivation in border areas, particularly evident \nwith regard to age dependency and \nunemployment. As the need for health services is \nhighly correlated with material deprivation it can \nbe assumed that those who live in border areas \nhave higher than average health needs. This is \nfurther borne out by studies of perinatal mortality \nwhich have suggested higher mortality rates in \nborder areas.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.007 |
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".