MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W279981885

Canada's Obligations to Global Public Health Security under the Revised International Health Regulations

2007· article· en· W279981885 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christopher W. McDougall, Kumanan Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth law review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational Health RegulationsPublic healthGlobal healthPrincipal (computer security)International healthCapacity buildingPolitical scienceInternational lawHealth policyBusinessPublic administrationEconomic growthPublic relationsLawMedicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)EconomicsDiseaseCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Computer security
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The aim of the World Health Organisation’s recently revised International Health Regulations [IHR] is to establish a global alert and response network for outbreaks of infectious disease and other public health threats with the potential for international spread. The rationalized and modernized IHR are a set of obligations and procedures for broad-based domestic and international public health collaboration to contain known risks, respond to unexpected ones, and improve national and international readiness through long-term sustainable capacity building at all levels. However, in the absence of significant changes to existing policies, operations, and capacities both within and among nations, compliance with the requirements of the agreement will remain challenging for many countries. This article briefly surveys the historical origins and the principal requirements of the revised IHR, with a particular focus on four key obligations: (1) to create an integrated national surveillance system; (2) to ensure timely reporting; (3) to prevent the application of excessive restrictive measures; and (4) to contribute to capacity-building in the developing world. Strategies for meeting the challenge of these obligations are proposed, as are recommendations for Canadian policy leadership in laying the foundations for effective

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)0.027
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.009
Scholarly communication0.0130.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.386 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth law reviewSame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207