MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461014215

Army Force Health Protection: past, present, and future.

2010· article· en· W2461014215 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ellen Combs

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentMilitary personnelGovernment (linguistics)Service (business)Health promotionEnvironmental healthService memberMilitary medicineGulf warQuarter (Canadian coin)Public administrationMedicineEngineeringBusinessPolitical sciencePublic healthLawNursingMarketingGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, many service members reported health problems and believed these problems were associated with their military service in the Persian Gulf. A paucity of health and deployment data severely limited the ability to investigate the nature and causes of these illnesses. Based on the findings from a 2002 study, the Government Accounting Office recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to establish an effective quality assurance program that would help ensure that the military services comply with the force health protection and surveillance requirements for all service members. In November 2003, The Surgeon General of the Army tasked the US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM) with the development of a Deployment Health Quality Assurance Program for the Army. Since 2003, a team from USACHPPM has visited approximately one Army installation per quarter. Over time, there has been remarkable improvement noted in Army deployment health metrics and practices.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207