MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987624907 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000308

Evidence-Based Priority Setting for Health Care and Research: Tools to Support Policy in Maternal, Neonatal, and Child Health in Africa

2010· review· en· W1987624907 on OpenAlexaff
Igor Rudan, Lydia Kapiriri, Mark Tomlinson, Manuela Balliet, Barney Cohen, Mickey Chopra

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCentre for Global Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild healthHealth policyHealth careMaternal healthMedicineInfant mortalityPublic healthFamily medicineEnvironmental healthNursingPediatricsEconomic growthPopulationHealth services

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is part of a PLoS Medicine series on maternal, neonatal, and child health in Africa Priority Setting-Implicit or Explicit?The Essay section contains opinion pieces on topics of broad interest to a general medical audience.

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)0.093
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.157
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0930.157
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.004
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.235
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations125
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207