MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heterogeneity of malaria prevalence in alluvial gold mining areas in Northern Mato Grosso State, Brazil

2007· article· en· W2014566569 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alisson Flávio Barbieri, Diana Oya Sawyer

Bibliographic record

VenueCadernos de Saúde Pública · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisInternational Development Research CentreRockefeller Foundation
KeywordsMalariaGold miningAmazon rainforestGeographyEnvironmental healthPopulationSocioeconomicsLogistic regressionMedicineEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes factors affecting the risk of malaria among individuals working in wildcat gold mining camps (garimpos) in northern Mato Grosso State in the Brazilian Amazon. Historically, such mining camps have the locations with the highest malaria prevalence in the Brazilian Amazon. However, little attention has focused on understanding the disease from the internal perspective of the mining camps themselves, such as the mining population's characteristics and its spatial organization. This paper adopts a stepwise logistic model to identify spatial, occupational-exposure, and cultural factors that affect malaria prevalence. According to the results, differences among individuals working and/or living in the gold mining areas could produce different exposure to the disease and thus to different risk of malaria prevalence. Understanding these differences may provide an important tool for identifying risk profiles in the gold mining and related population and for informing programs for prevention and treatment of malaria in the Amazon.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations44
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCadernos de Saúde PúblicaSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207