Canadian Forces Evaluation of the EPINATO Health Surveillance System in Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Forces (CF) adopted the EPINATO surveillance system in 1996 to monitor disease and injury morbidity in deployed settings. The Directorate of Force Health Protection, CF Health Services Group initiated an evaluation of EPINATO in Task Force Bosnia-Herzegovina in August 2003. Two methods were used to assess coding reliability: a chart audit and Sick Parade Register review. Stakeholder interviews were conducted evaluating data flow, reporting structure, and key system attributes. Reliability (K, 95% confidence interval) was good in 4 of 24 categories--sexually transmitted diseases, K = 0.75 (0.50, 1.00); eye disorders, K = 0.51 (0.15, 0.88); ears/nose/ throat, K = 0.51 (0.33, 0.69); lower respiratory infections, K = 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.34, 0.65)-but otherwise was poor. EPINATO is not an effective, reliable tool for CF deployment health surveillance. An improved health surveillance system is required to ensure disease and injury aberrations are detected and optimal preventive programs and policies are in place for deployed CF military members.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".