Strengthening the International Health Regulations: lessons from the H1N1 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Health Regulations (2005) [IHR(2005)] represent a potentially revolutionary change in global health governance. The use of the regulations by the World Health Organization (WHO) to respond to the outbreak of pandemic influenza A 2009-H1N1 highlights the importance of the regulations to protecting global health security. As the 2009-H1N1 pandemic illustrated, the IHR(2005) have provided a more robust framework for responding to public health emergencies of international concern (PHEICs), through requiring reporting of serious disease events, strengthening how countries and WHO communicate concerning health threats, empowering the WHO Director-General to declare the existence of PHEICs and to issue temporary recommendations for responding to them, and requiring countries not to implement measures that unnecessarily restrict trade and travel or infringe on human rights. However, limitations to the effectiveness of the IHR(2005) revealed in the 2009-H1N1 pandemic include continuing inadequacies in surveillance and response capacities within some countries, violations of IHR(2005) rules and a potentially narrowing scope of application only to influenza-like pandemic events. These limitations could undermine the IHR(2005)'s potential to contribute to national and global efforts to detect and mitigate future public health emergencies. Support for the IHR(2005) should be broadened and deepened to improve their utility as a tool to strengthen global health security.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".