Rural health activism over two decades: the Wonca Working Party on Rural Practice 1992-2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Wonca Working Party on Rural Practice (WWPRP) was formed in 1992 in response to the realization that rural healthcare faced many serious and similar challenges around the world. Over the years the members of the committee have come from many different countries but found inspiration and strength in developing and sharing educational and health system innovations that could be modified and applied to different rural settings. The 11 world rural health conferences organized by the WWPRP over the first two decades since it was founded brought together a range of people, from rural doctors and other front-line healthcare workers to administrators and educational leaders, who connected with and learned from each other to advance rural health care around the world. The WWPRP policy documents and conference consensus statements have been important in shaping rural health care in a number of different contexts, and have led to issues of rural health care rising to prominence on the world stage. The WWPRP has throughout been an activist lobby group with a focus on the rural communities it serves rather than its members, and enters its third decade with much left to be done.
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 | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".