MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291070495 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002363

The Grand Convergence: Closing the Divide between Public Health Funding and Global Health Needs

2016· article· en· W2291070495 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mary M. Moran

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Française de DéveloppementDanish International Development AgencyDepartment for International DevelopmentUdenrigsministerietBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaStyrelsen för Internationellt UtvecklingssamarbeteFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do AmazonasEuropean CommissionIrish AidBill and Melinda Gates FoundationNational Institutes of HealthUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungDirektoratet for UtviklingssamarbeidMinisterie van Buitenlandse ZakenDepartment of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsConvergence (economics)Public healthGlobal healthClosing (real estate)Grand ChallengesUnderpinningBiologyInternational healthPublic relationsEconomic growthHealth policyPolitical scienceEconomicsMedicineEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Global Health 2035 report notes that the "grand convergence"--closure of the infectious, maternal, and child mortality gap between rich and poor countries--is dependent on research and development (R&D) of new drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and other health tools. However, this convergence (and the R&D underpinning it) will first require an even more fundamental convergence of the different worlds of public health and innovation, where a largely historical gap between global health experts and innovation experts is hindering achievement of the grand convergence in health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207