Training in epidemiology and disease control for humanitarian emergencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humanitarian emergencies resulting from armed conflicts and natural disasters necessitate the most rapid of public health responses. During 2009 and 2010, practitioners highlighted two critical opportunities in such settings: (1) to respond to the changing needs for health assessment and healthcare delivery for conflict-affected communities and (2) to strengthen operational research capacity for disease control programmes that serve vulnerable populations.1 2 Both ideas signal the need for reinforcement of training for health workers in crises and they also resonate with the aims of field epidemiology. Field epidemiology encompasses the investigation of infectious diseases and other health events and the conduct of succinct research studies using surveillance data. These tools are applied to derive evidence rapidly for intervention and policy change. Epidemiologists working for non-governmental organisations, ministries of health and international organisations use this approach to assess disease burden and to plan and evaluate interventions, sometimes in very challenging circumstances.3 4 This approach can flexibly contend with the changing demographics of crisis-affected populations who may be living longer, who …
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 | 0.065 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".