MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046820182 · doi:10.1353/pbm.2001.0053

Human Mobility and Population Health: New Approaches in a Globalizing World

2001· article· en· W2046820182 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas W. MacPherson, Brian D. Gushulak

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives in biology and medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthPopulationLegislatureGlobalizationGeographic mobilityImmigrationEconomic growthPopulation healthEnvironmental healthDiseaseEpidemiologyGlobal healthDevelopment economicsHealth policyBusinessPolitical scienceMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The globalization of economies in the last 25 years has greatly increased both the number of people on the move and the rapidity of their movement, and has brought attention to global disparities in health determinants and to the health of migrant populations themselves. Differences in epidemiological disease risk (prevalence gaps) may have negative, neutral, or positive health consequences for the migrant or receiving population. Population mobility represents a growing challenge to the development of public health programs and legislative policies to prevent the importation of disease, and to promote and protect the health of migrants and the local, receiving population. The inability to detect and contain imported disease threats at national borders requires a shift in immigration, quarantine, and public health approaches to health and mobile populations. A new paradigm is needed to facilitate the development of policies and programs to address the health consequences of population mobility.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.042
Scholarly communication0.0100.023
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations61
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives in biology and medicineSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207