MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899925163 · doi:10.1186/s12889-018-6051-z

Non-communicable diseases surveillance: overview of magnitude and determinants in Kenya from STEPwise approach survey of 2015

2018· article· en· W2899925163 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAfrican Population and Health Research CenterInternational Development Research CentreEli Lilly and CompanyWorld Bank GroupNovo NordiskSanofi
KeywordsMedicineBiostatisticsEnvironmental healthPublic healthEpidemiologyNon-communicable diseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disease surveillance is a scientifically and legally established hallmark of population health whose goal is systematically collecting, interpreting and disseminating data to target and monitor interventions to reduce disease morbidity and mortality [1–5]. However, data is often either lacking or of low quality especially in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). For example, more than half of global deaths for 2015 did not have an established cause [6]. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD), the largest descriptive epidemiological study, show low rates of data quality for most LMICs during 1980–2016 [7]. Despite substantial improvements in data quality and cause of death establishment [8, 9], of over 50 health-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) indicators identified in the World Health Statistics 2017 report, data is adequate for monitoring 36 indicators [10].

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.277 · 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