MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793048979 · doi:10.1177/0976399620926141

Human Resources in Healthcare and Health Outcomes in India

2020· article· en· W2793048979 on OpenAlexaff
Venkatanarayana Motkuri, Udaya S. Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenueMillennial Asia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careHuman resourcesHealth human resourcesHealth policyBusinessEconomic growthEconomic shortageGlobal healthEnvironmental healthMedicineEconomicsGovernment (linguistics)Management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human resources for health including health professionals and skilled health workers are crucial in shaping health outcomes. But the shortage of human resources in healthcare services is a reality and hence it has been a cause of concern in lower-middle income countries like India. The present exercise based on census data is a situation analysis of size, composition and distribution of human resources available in the Indian healthcare services. It also explores the relationship between educational development and health workers availability alongside the association between density of health workers and health outcomes across states of India. It is observed that despite the remarkable improvement in health workers density particularly during 2001–2011, the country is falling short of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) need-based minimum requirement (4.45 health workers per 1,000 population) of health workers. The exploratory verification asserts that there is a significant and strong positive relationship/association between the density of health workers and health outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMillennial AsiaSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207