MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2543460666

Ethics of quarantine: the West African Ebola crisis

2015· article· en· W2543460666 on OpenAlexaff
Pearl Vyas

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health: Annual Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarantineSierra leonePublic healthGovernment (linguistics)Transparency (behavior)AutonomyEconomic growthPolitical sciencePoliticsLawPublic administrationDevelopment economicsMedicineSocioeconomicsSociologyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As West Africa is reeling from the devastating Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), there should be an examination of public health measures that were implemented by the three most affected nations, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea(4). Quarantine is a practice that is hundreds of years old that precedes the development of the germ theory and was utilized globally to protect communities from infectious diseases (2). However with this practice came stigmatization as well as questions of whether it was ethical to infringe an individual’s autonomy and what did society or the governments “owe” an infected person (2). Examining the 2014 EVD crisis, there can understanding that with the backdrop of past political, economic and social sufferings, there still is a great responsibility on nations and health systems to uphold the ethical standards of public health measures such as quarantine (1). Using the four principles of Ross E. G. Upshur's Public health Ethics Framework, there will be comparisons of actions taken by the “powers” and the ultimate effects on the individuals under quarantine in these regions (3). There will be a clear demonstration that quarantine measures observed by affected countries infringed on an individual’s autonomy, with a lack of consideration of physical and social needs and the required transparency in government and health system procedures.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.484
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; 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health: Annual ReviewSame topicViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchFrench-language works237,207