MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052267553 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v61i3.17451

Circumpolar health gains an identity of its own

2002· editorial· en· W2052267553 on OpenAlexaff
Juhani Hassi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2002
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircumpolar starArcticThe arcticHealth careEnvironmental healthEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceGeographyMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arctic health was the main topic at an expert meeting of the Arctic Council held in Oulu this May. The need for drawing attention to health issues was recognized as an impor tant par t of the international Arctic co-operation. Environmental pollutants in the Arctic as health risk factors will be discussed during the AMAP-collaboration. Also climatic physical factors in the Arctic as health risks are in focus as regards the Arctic Climatic Impact Assessment (ACIA). Global surveillance of HIV and tuberculosis in the Arctic has also star ted. A similar kind of surveillance should also find its place as regards injuries, infectious and chronic diseases. This basic information on nor thern health is vital so that proper health care practices could be established. To promote these activities co-operation with health and well-being professionals and officials in different countries is important; active participation at the grass-root level is also valuable when setting priorities concerning health and well-being in the entire circumpolar area. This Journal offers a forum for well grounded opinions when it comes to the needs and practices of the future cooperation.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0140.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0150.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.405 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207