MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2583198765 · doi:10.1163/15718158-01702007

Searching for the Elusive? Examining the Right to Health’s Status in the Pacific

2016· article· en· W2583198765 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Y Kallie, Claire E. Brolan, Nicola Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRight to healthRatificationHuman rightsPolitical scienceHealth policySustainable developmentInternational lawEconomic growthLawHealth carePoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrating the right to health is pivotal in progressing health and development in the Pacific. The Sustainable Development Goal (sdg) agenda provides an opportunity for this, given the relationship between health, human rights, climate change and sustainable development. The right to health’s content can be utilised to progress country obligations in various ways: through facilitating implementation of Universal Health Coverage, supporting the development of health metrics, and assisting in equitable health policies. Cumulatively, such measures can act as process and outcome indicators of a state’s progressive realisation toward achieving the right to health. In analysing the status of the law and policy relating to the right to health, this study has established a right to health baseline for the Pacific region at sdg commencement, contributing both to monitoring and evaluation, and promoting visibility of this often overlooked region. Methods included a systematic review of the literature on the right to health, and review of six structural rights indicators in existing law and policy relating to the right to health in the 16 Pacific Island Forum countries and territories, 14 of which are recognised as small island developing states. Findings confirm the right to health’s marginalisation in the region. The ratification of United Nations (un) treaties, integration of international human rights obligations into domestic law and policy, and compliance with reporting requirements were found to be piecemeal and ad hoc at best. We argue that while legal recognition is only one step in the process of realising the right to health, the existence of right to health law and policy is a pivotal start if there is to be equitable implementation of the sdg health agenda. We also recommend Pacific nations develop one reporting framework, which can double to meet their reporting requirements under un treaty bodies and sdg 3 global health commitments.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.024
Scholarly communication0.0120.022
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the LawSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207