MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335777723 · doi:10.12927/whp..17600

Assessing Aid: What Works, What Doesn't and Why? World Bank Policy Research Report: David Dollar and Lant Pritchett

2013· article· en· W2335777723 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Spencer Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld health & population · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealthcare policyLiberian dollarPolitical scienceAdministration (probate law)Nursing researchHealth policyHealth carePublic administrationEconomic growthLibrary scienceNursingInternational healthMedicineBusinessEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Best practices, policy and innovations in the administration of healthcare in developing communities and countries. For administrators, academics, researchers and policy leaders. Includes peer reviewed research papers. Edited by Dr. Judith Shamian, President Emeritus, International Council of Nurses, Professor and Co-investigator with the Nursing Health Services Research Unit, Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.421
Teacher spread0.358 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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