MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796687948 · doi:10.1186/s13071-018-2627-9

Implementing a larviciding efficacy or effectiveness control intervention against malaria vectors: key parameters for success

2018· review· en· W2796687948 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueParasites & Vectors · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMalaria Research and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersWellcome TrustWellcome
KeywordsIndoor residual sprayingMalariaMosquito controlAnophelesInsecticide resistanceVector (molecular biology)BiologyEnvironmental healthMalaria preventionPsychological interventionTransmission (telecommunications)ToxicologyBiotechnologyPlasmodium falciparumMedicineComputer sciencePopulationArtemisininImmunologyHealth servicesNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last decade, scale-up of vector control tools such as long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) contributed to the reduction of malaria morbidity and mortality across the continent. Because these first line interventions are now affected by many challenges such as insecticide resistance, change in vector feeding and biting behaviour, outdoor malaria transmission and adaptation of mosquito to polluted environments, the World Health Organization recommends the use of integrated control approaches to improve, control and elimination of malaria. Larviciding is one of these approaches which, if well implemented, could help control malaria in areas where this intervention is suitable. Unfortunately, important knowledge gaps remain in its successful application. The present review summarises key parameters that should be considered when implementing larviciding efficacy or effectiveness trials.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.406
Teacher spread0.350 · 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