MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268756047 · doi:10.1017/s1049023x00003150

What Have We Learned? Coordination

2005· article· en· W2268756047 on OpenAlexaff
Kayode Oyegbite

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital and Disaster Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsUnited Nations Children's Fund Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic relationsBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper outlines each aspect of coordination as it relates to the responses made by various organizations in the disaster-affected areas. It is a synthesis of the presentations and discussions pertaining to coordination during the Conference, Health Aspects of the Tsunami Disaster in Asia, convened by the World Health Organization (WHO), in Phuket, Thailand, 04-06 May 2005. Coordination is defined, and two important questions are answered: (1) What coordination was done well?; and (2) What coordination could have been done better?

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)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0120.036
Scholarly communication0.0300.036
Open science0.0050.017
Research integrity0.0070.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations16
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrehospital and Disaster MedicineSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207