MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Public Health Surveillance Systems: Recent Advances in Their Use and Evaluation

2016· review· en· W2564356125 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Public Health · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsPublic health surveillancePublic healthPublic health informaticsHealth informaticsContext (archaeology)Health surveillancePopulation healthHealth careEnvironmental healthPublic relationsData scienceHRHISBusinessHealth policyRisk analysis (engineering)MedicineComputer sciencePolitical scienceNursingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surveillance is critical for improving population health. Public health surveillance systems generate information that drives action, and the data must be of sufficient quality and with a resolution and timeliness that matches objectives. In the context of scientific advances in public health surveillance, changing health care and public health environments, and rapidly evolving technologies, the aim of this article is to review public health surveillance systems. We consider their current use to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the public health system, the role of system stakeholders, the analysis and interpretation of surveillance data, approaches to system monitoring and evaluation, and opportunities for future advances in terms of increased scientific rigor, outcomes-focused research, and health informatics.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.230 · 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