Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this book is to better understand how to improve the health of individuals, populations and the global community. What are the major threats to health? What are the causes of poor health? What works to improve health? How do we know that it works? What are the barriers to implementation? What are the measures of success? These are some of the key questions that will be addressed in this book. The aim is to provide health practitioners and policy-makers with a broad overview of how to improve health and reduce health inequities, as well as the tools to make more evidence-informed decisions that will have a positive influence on health. Indeed, countless decisions that affect health are made every day, whether at the level of individual health choices made by patients and the general public, population health policies and programmes made by politicians and public health officials, or global health strategies and recommendations made by an increasing number of players at the international level, including civil servants, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), philanthropists, academics, public–private partnerships and so forth. For instance, a mother takes time off from work to bring her child to the local clinic to be vaccinated. A student buys a fruit for an afternoon snack rather than potato chips. A 28-year-old woman who carries the BRCA gene for hereditary breast-ovarian cancer undergoes preventive surgery to remove her breasts and ovaries. A government passes a bill to extend parental leave to one year and to increase funding for early childhood development programmes. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends increasing universal health coverage and social protection by strengthening primary health care as the foundation for all health systems. In each of the above examples, people were faced with a choice (i.e. to vaccinate or not, to eat a fruit or chips, to have preventive surgery or enhanced screening, to finance social programmes or reduce taxes, to promote vertical programming that focuses on preventing and treating a single disease or a more comprehensive approach based on primary health care), and a decision was made that will either improve or impair health outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.377 | 0.206 |
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".