MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2914139379 · doi:10.4103/2395-2113.251600

Neonatal care in India

2015· article· en· W2914139379 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Geeta Gathwala

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Community and Family Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfant mortalityNeonatal mortalityPaceNeonatal deathMedicineMillennium Development GoalsQuarter (Canadian coin)Health carePediatricsMortality rateEnvironmental healthDemographyEconomic growthDeveloping countryGeographyPopulationPregnancyEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last decade has witnessed momentous changes in the Neonatal health scenario in India. Newborn Health care has received unprecedented attention and resources. It is the current focus of Central and state governments and the various funding agencies. And, like never before, there is an opportunity for the champions of newborn health to take their agenda forward . India contributes to one-fifth of global live births and more than a quarter of neonatal deaths. About two-thirds of infant deaths and half of under-five child deaths are during the neonatal period. The neonatal mortality rate has reduced over the years but the decline is at a much slower pace as compared to deaths in the older infant groups. Among neonatal deaths, the rate of decline in early NMR is much lower than that of late NMR. The Millennium Development Goal-4 (MDG-4), which stipulates a two-thirds reduction in under-five deaths by 2015, obviously cannot be achieved without ensuring a substantial reduction in the neonatal mortality rate (NMR). This article reviews the current status of Neonatal Care in India.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Community and Family Medicine→Same topicChild Nutrition and Water Access→French-language works237,207→