MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789847305 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v42is1a03

What can public health do to address inequities in infectious disease?

2016· article· en· W2789847305 on OpenAlexaffvenue
BW Moloughney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthSocial determinants of healthCall to actionHealth equityPolitical sciencePublic relationsHealth promotionCLARITYInfectious disease (medical specialty)Health policyEconomic growthDiseaseEnvironmental healthMedicineBusinessNursingBiologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The recognition of the importance of social conditions informed early public health responses to infectious disease epidemics.By influencing exposure, vulnerability, and access to health services, social determinants of health (SDOH) continue to cause inequalities in infectious disease distribution.Such preventable and unjust inequalities are considered to be inequities.Analysis: A number of challenges and barriers exist to more widespread public health action that addresses SDOH and inequities, including a lack of clarity on what public health should or could do.The National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health (NCCDH) has identified four primary roles for public health action on SDOH and inequities.This paper describes these roles and includes examples of their application to infectious diseases.The critical contribution that organizations make in providing the leadership and support for programs and staff to pursue action on SDOH and inequities is also highlighted.Conclusion: While the challenge is large and complex, approaches such as the NCCDH roles for public health action provide a menu of options to facilitate the analysis and action to address SDOH and inequities in infectious diseases.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.018
Scholarly communication0.0140.009
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease ReportSame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207