MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042302535 · doi:10.4236/ojpm.2011.12009

Suggested health services research action to achieve reduction of neonatal mortality in India

2011· article· en· W2042302535 on OpenAlexaff
Manoj Kumar, Haresh Kirpalani

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Journal of Preventive Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfant mortalityMedicineMillennium Development GoalsNeonatal mortalityChild mortalityEnvironmental healthMortality ratePediatricsDeveloping countryEconomic growthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite several national programs to reduce infant mortality, India had repeatedly failed to achieve its set targets for infant mortality. There are approximately one million neonatal deaths in India each year which accounts for nearly two-thirds of the infant deaths in India. India’s current trajectories of neonatal and infant mortality rates make it unlikely that it will achieve its targets for infant mortality rate for 2015 set under the Millennium Development Goals. Since two-thirds of infant deaths in India are neonatal deaths, implementation of effective neonatal care strategies would be essential to reduce infant mortality considerably. The history of child health services in India suggests an inattention to qualitative parameters, hindering a reversal of its failures. We discuss a format of mixed-methods participatory research, integrated with routine district level household surveys (DLHS), as a model of health services research which would better delineate the problems encountered in delivering effective newborn care at the primary care level.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Journal of Preventive MedicineSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207