MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793604432 · doi:10.1177/2053168017753901

How to estimate (and not to estimate) war deaths: A reply to van Weezel and Spagat

2018· article· en· W2793604432 on OpenAlexaff
Amy Hagopian, Abraham D. Flaxman, Lindsay P. Galway, Tim K. Takaro, Gilbert Burnham

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch & Politics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection biasDeath certificatePoliticsCitationSample (material)Political scienceDemographyStatisticsSociologyLawMedicineCause of deathMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stijn van Weezel and Michael Spagat (2017) have critiqued our 2011 report of mortality in Iraq following the 2003 US-led invasion in this issue of Research & Politics. In this response, we make our case for reporting both direct and indirect excess war-related deaths (while distinguishing the difference), defend our efforts to account for survival bias, and provide evidence for including all household-reported deaths, not just those cases where a death certificate can be demonstrated. We also point out Van Weezel and Spagat’s misunderstanding of our sample selection method, despite our citation of our separate paper that thoroughly describes our approach.

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)0.112
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.375
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1120.375
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.023
Scholarly communication0.0070.019
Open science0.0080.006
Research integrity0.0340.099
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.356 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch & PoliticsSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207