MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012346028 · doi:10.1016/s0840-4704(10)60229-3

Global Burden of Disease: <i>Huge Inequities in the Health Status in Developing and Developed Countries</i>

2003· article· en· W2012346028 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kyla Elizabeth Sentes, Walter Kipp

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeveloping countryBurden of diseaseGlobal healthDisease burdenEconomic growthDiseaseDevelopment economicsEnvironmental healthDeveloped countryAssertionHealth carePolitical scienceMedicineBusinessEconomicsPopulationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper outlines the Global Burden of Disease study which was conducted for the 1993 World Bank Development Report. The study revealed huge differences in premature death and disability in the world regions examined; sub-Saharan Africa and India had the highest burden of disease. This paper also examines how the large differences in burden of disease between developed and developing countries can be explained by economic factors, highlighting research findings that suggest egalitarian societies are likely to have better health status than countries with capitalistic, market-based economies. This study then examines the efforts of the Global Forum for Health Research to create an integrated approach to global health policy formulation, using global burden of disease data, and concludes with the assertion that adopting such an approach nationally would also assist developed countries like Canada in better dealing with future health challenges.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207