MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136918565 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.04.029

Women's right to health and the Millennium Development Goals: Promoting partnerships to improve access

2006· editorial· en· W2136918565 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2006
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMillennium Development GoalsSummitReproductive healthEmpowermentEconomic growthMedicinePovertySustainable developmentDisadvantagedEnvironmental healthPolitical sciencePopulationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Millennium Development Goals (MGD) represent a commitment of 189 member states that adopted them during the Millennium Summit in September 2000. This UN General Assembly recognized that gender equality and women's empowerment are both central to achieving sustainable development by means of combating poverty, hunger and disease. Neither reproductive nor sexual health was explicitly articulated in the original MDGs and indicators-a critical omission, as globally women are more disadvantaged than men. However, a clear link exists between all of the MDGs and the reproductive and sexual health of women, who cannot contribute to sustainable development, unless their right to health is met through improved access. The FIGO 2006 World Report on Women's Health addresses many issues critical to the success of the MDGs, with a focus on how partnerships have become a crucial vehicle to improve access to health for women.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.312 · 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