MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521347721 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(16)30183-8

Asking different questions: research priorities to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child

2016· article· en· W2521347721 on OpenAlexaff
Holly Powell Kennedy, S Yoshida, Anthony Costello, Eugene Declercq, Marcos Augusto Bastos Dias, Elizabeth Duff, Atf Ghérissi, Karyn Kaufman, Frances McConville, Alison McFadden, Michaela Michel‐Schuldt, Nester Moyo, Kerri Schuiling, A Speciale, Mary J. Renfrew

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersDirektoratet for UtviklingssamarbeidWorld Health OrganizationBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsScopusMedicineHealth careFamily medicineMaternity carePediatricsMEDLINENursingObstetricsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unacceptably high rates of adverse outcomes persist for childbearing women and infants, including maternal and newborn mortality, stillbirth, and short-term and long-term morbidity.1 In light of the challenges to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals, it is timely to reconsider priorities for research in maternal and newborn health. Are we asking the right questions?2 Recent evidence indicates the importance of seeking knowledge beyond the treatment of complications, to inform better ways of providing sustainable, high quality care, including preventing problems before they occur.

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)0.235
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.301
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2350.301
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0140.027
Scholarly communication0.0310.046
Open science0.0070.024
Research integrity0.0300.053
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.010

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.380 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations55
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207