MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113808438 · doi:10.3325/cmj.2008.3.307

Setting Priorities in Global Child Health Research Investments: Universal Challenges and Conceptual Framework

2008· article· en· W2113808438 on OpenAlexaff
Igor Rudan, Mickey Chopra, Lydia Kapiriri, Jennifer Gibson, Mary Ann Lansang, Ilona Carneiro, Shanthi Ameratunga, Alexander C. Tsai, Kit Yee Chan, Mark Tomlinson, Sonja Y. Hess, Harry Campbell, Shams El Arifeen, Robert E. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueCroatian Medical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineWorld Health Organization
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Disease burdenPopulationConceptual frameworkPublic healthPopulation healthBusinessPublic economicsPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceEnvironmental healthEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasingly, there is a need for national governments, public-private partnerships, private sector and other funding agencies to set priorities in health research investments in a fair and transparent way. A process of priority setting is always an activity driven by values of wide range of stakeholders, which are often conflicting. This process always occurs in a highly specific context (eg, agreed policies and targets in terms of disease burden reduction and time limit, defined geographic space, population and specific health problems).

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)0.131
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1310.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.037
Scholarly communication0.0300.029
Open science0.0050.018
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.467
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.007 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainIncentives
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

Citations109
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCroatian Medical JournalSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207