MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094476775 · doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7490.533

A global health equity agenda for the G8 summit

2005· article· en· W2094476775 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald Labonté, Ted Schrecker, Amit Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummitCommitEquity (law)Political scienceMillennium Development GoalsDeveloping countryGlobal healthEconomic growthPublic administrationDevelopment economicsComputer scienceEconomicsGeographyLawHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The G8 summit in July could be used to enable developing countries to meet the millennium development goals. What should world leaders commit to?

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0360.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.010

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations22
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207