MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035010487 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61403-8

Supporting the delivery of cost-effective interventions in primary health-care systems in low-income and middle-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews

2008· review· en· W2035010487 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Lewin, John N. Lavis, Andrew D Oxman, Gabriel Bastías, Mickey Chopra, Agustín Ciapponi, Signe Flottorp, Sebastián García Martí, Tomás Pantoja, Gabriel Rada, Nathan Mendes Souza, Shaun Treweek, Charles Shey Wiysonge, Andy Haines

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionDeclarationHealth careCorporate governanceMedicinePublic economicsBusinessHealth policyEvidence-based practiceEconomic growthNursingPublic healthPolitical scienceAlternative medicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.133
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.133
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.014
Bibliometrics0.0130.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations201
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207