MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262628443 · doi:10.12927/whp.2016.24498

Addressing Maternal and Newborn Health: A Leadership Perspective

2015· article· en· W2262628443 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leslie Mancuso, Peter Johnson, Leah Hart, Kate Austin

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld health & population · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthChildbirthGlobal healthEconomic growthMedicineBest practiceWork (physics)Qualitative researchInternational healthHealth policyVariety (cybernetics)NursingPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologyPregnancySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, each year 289,000 mothers die in childbirth and three million infants die in the first four weeks of life. The shortcomings in maternal and newborn health are particularly devastating in low-resource countries. This qualitative study describes the experience of an international nongovernmental organization, Jhpiego, which has been implementing public health programs to address maternal and newborn health outcomes for more than 40 years. Themes emerged from interviews with leaders of offices in a variety of countries with unique challenges related to health systems, human resources and infrastructure. Results emphasized the importance of partnerships with governments and international agencies for long-term program impact, as well as the recruitment of local talent for improving health systems to address problems that are best understood by the people who live and work in these countries. The discussion of program successes and challenges may inform best practices for promoting the health and wellness of women and families around the world.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld health & populationSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207