MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164243596 · doi:10.1126/science.1115538

Health Innovation Networks to Help Developing Countries Address Neglected Diseases

2005· article· en· W2164243596 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Morel, Tara Acharya, Denis Broun, Ajit Dangi, Christopher Elias, Nirmal Kumar Ganguly, C. A. Gardner, Rajesh Gupta, Jane Haycock, A. D. Heher, Peter J. Hotez, Hannah Kettler, Gerald T. Keusch, A. Krattiger, Fernando Kreutz, Sanjaya Lall, Keun Lee, R. T. Mahoney, Adolfo Martínez‐Palomo, R. A. Mashelkar, Stephen A. Matlin, Mandi Mzimba, Joachim Oehler, Robert G. Ridley, Pramilla Senanayake, Peter Singer, Mikyung Yun

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of California, Los AngelesKarolinska InstitutetUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisMedical Research CouncilCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueWellcome TrustUniversity of Washington
KeywordsDeveloping countryBusinessEconomic growthDeveloped countrySustainabilityPublic healthGlobal healthEquity (law)Development economicsPublic economicsHealth careEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceEconomicsMedicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gross inequities in disease burden between developed and developing countries are now the subject of intense global attention. Public and private donors have marshaled resources and created organizational structures to accelerate the development of new health products and to procure and distribute drugs and vaccines for the poor. Despite these encouraging efforts directed primarily from and funded by industrialized countries, sufficiency and sustainability remain enormous challenges because of the sheer magnitude of the problem. Here we highlight a complementary and increasingly important means to improve health equity: the growing ability of some developing countries to undertake health innovation.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.005

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.323 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
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

Citations237
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207