MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1608695898

Health Care Refugees

2009· article· en· W1608695898 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patricia C. Gunn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Justice
KeywordsRefugeeHealth carePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In theory, any country in the world could grant health care refugee status to any person who might seek such assistance.In practicality, however, only developed countries with strong economies and health care systems should be asked to accommodate health care refugees.For example, U.N. member states such as those comprising the G-8 might be called upon to grant "health care refugee" status to persons in need of such humanitarian protection.Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom, all members of the G-8, have universal health care for their citizens.Furthermore, the G-8, of which the United States is a member, has taken a strong position on the importance of the universal access to health services.In the July 8, 2008 Toyako Framework for Action on Global Health, the G-8 Health Experts Group recommended to the leaders of the G-8, the following: 8.In addressing global health challenges, the human security perspective focusing on protection and empowerment of individuals and communities is critical, given that the health challenges directly affect human dignity and, in the words of the preamble to the World Health Organization Constitution, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, which is one of the fundamental human rights of every human being. 11.Health systems are multi-dimensional.The international community should tackle various aspects of health systems such as the health workforce and human resources for health; health information; good governance; essential infrastructure; quality assurance; management of medical products and essential drug supply systems; and sustainable and equitable health financing of the health systems.Aiming to work towards universal access to health services, the G8 emphasizes the importance of comprehensive approaches to address the strengthening of health systems including social health protection, and will work with partner countries to promote adequate coverage of recurrent costs in health systems.(Emphasis added). G8 Summit, Hokkaido

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1170.016

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMigration, Health and Trauma→French-language works237,207→