MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2651948055 · doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwx021

Civil Registration and Vital Statistics, Emergencies, and International Law: Understanding the Intersection

2017· article· en· W2651948055 on OpenAlexaff
Claire E. Brolan, Hebe Gouda

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Law Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationGeographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) systems are typically run by governments to record every birth, adoption, death, marriage, and divorce that occurs among a country's population. Registration of vital events provides individuals with a formal relationship with the State and each other, and is the foundation of a person's identity, nationality, and legal status. At a population level, vital statistics are essential for effective planning and implementation of policies and services. Globally, strong CRVS systems are increasingly recognised as a crucial backbone for redressing health inequities and as a priority in strengthening global health and development efforts. Many countries, however, currently lack adequate and reliable CRVS systems, leaving many people vulnerable to statelessness, limited access to important government services (such as education and health services), and effective legal protection. Public health and humanitarian emergencies in such contexts can expose those already disadvantaged and marginalised to heightened risk. CRVS systems weakened by crises make registration difficult or impossible and unregistered people may be displaced or separated from their families, exacerbating their susceptibility. The presence of a strong CRVS system, therefore, can facilitate effective and cost-effective emergency responses, help prevent exploitation of individuals (particularly women and children), and help to rebuild communities post-crisis. This article will consequently review the international legal mandates that exist to strengthen CRVS systems globally, with particular view to public health and humanitarian emergencies. Identity and citizenship, and the socio-political contexts in which these concepts co-exist, are inevitably interconnected with CRVS. This can create potential for CRVS systems and data to be exploited as a political instrument. Grounding CRVS strengthening in a single binding, human rights law instrument is a potential way forward.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.033
Scholarly communication0.0210.033
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations34
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Law ReviewSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207