MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317745543 · doi:10.1017/s1049023x11003232

(A306) Primary Care in the First 72 Hours Post Disaster: A Crazy Idea or a Sensible Inclusion for Foreign Medical Teams?

2011· article· en· W2317745543 on OpenAlexaff
Lynda Redwood‐Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital and Disaster Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)CollationMedical emergencyWork (physics)BrainstormingEmergency managementPresentation (obstetrics)Disaster medicineTerrorismChinaMedicinePsychologyBusinessSuicide preventionPoison controlPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use and number of Foreign Field hospitals and Foreign Medical Teams being mobilized after sudden onset disasters in the past decade has increased significantly. Examples include Haiti (2010), China (2008) Pakistan (2005), and Iran (2003). Foreign medical teams do not just work in field hospitals anymore and new trends of how FMTs are engaged need to be taken into consideration. After sudden impact disasters, there is undoubtedly a high need for surgical response. The role of primary care, immediately after a disaster or emergency has sometimes been described as low priority and therefore not needed during the initial response to disasters and emergencies. This oral presentation will review trends in the primary care needs post disaster and the literature around it. Using the Health Resource Availability Mapping System (a model that is derived from the standard health cluster tool and used for collection, collation and analysis of health sector information) and modified to sudden onset disasters, which primary health services when will be reviewed. Discussion and brainstorming encouraged!

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.008

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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