MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988027576 · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7333.318

Afghanistan needs security to rebuild its health services

2002· article· en· W1988027576 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tessa Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAfghanGovernment (linguistics)Health careQuarter (Canadian coin)PopulationEconomic growthInternational healthBusinessPolitical scienceHealth policyPublic administrationMedicineEnvironmental healthGeographyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large scale emergency, reconstruction, and development aid is needed to rebuild Afghanistan's devastated infrastructure. All sectors, not least the health sector, need massive external support and they need it now, Kieran Prendergast, undersecretary of political affairs at the United Nations, told a meeting of the World Economic Forum in New York last week. Afghanistan's health statistics are among the worst in the world. Large numbers of people are dying from preventable diseases, and the World Health Organization estimates that six million people have little or no access to medical care. Only about 1 in 4 people has access to clean water. Hospitals and health centres are denuded of staff, equipment, power, and medicines. For a population of about 23 million people there are only about 17500 health professionals. A quarter of the doctors are in Kabul, where only 7% of the population live. By World Health Organization standards a minimum of 63000 health workers are needed to provide a basic essential service. The Afghan government lacks the money to pay even basic costs and salaries, and re-establishing a viable health system will take …

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207