MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109979595 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001186

Guidance for Evidence-Informed Policies about Health Systems: Linking Guidance Development to Policy Development

2012· article· en· W2109979595 on OpenAlexafffund
John N. Lavis, John‐Arne Røttingen, Xavier Bosch‐Capblanch, Rifat Atun, Fadi El‐Jardali, Lucy Gilson, Simon Lewin, Sandy Oliver, Pierre Ongolo‐Zogo, Andy Haines

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersAlliance for Health Policy and Systems ResearchUniversity of OttawaWorld Health OrganizationRockefeller Foundation
KeywordsHealth policyMedicineEvidence-based medicinePolicy developmentMEDLINEPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsPublic healthPublic administrationNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is one paper in a three-part series that sets out how evidence should be translated into guidance to inform policies on health systems and improve the delivery of clinical and public health interventions.

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)0.193
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.517
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1930.517
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0170.018
Open science0.0090.014
Research integrity0.0320.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.005

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 head0.532
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.032 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations163
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207