MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977791285

G7 and G20 Commitments on Health

2019· article· en· W2977791285 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Brian Lucas

Bibliographic record

VenueOpenDocs (Institute of Development Studies) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoDepartment for International DevelopmentGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are four health issues that have received the most consistent attention in G7 and G20 summit declarations, having been addressed in more than half of the summits since 2015 and appearing in 30 or more commitments over that time. Those issues are health systems strengthening, infectious diseases (including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, polio, neglected tropical diseases, and vaccination), antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and public health crises. Other issues highlighted in at least half of the summits include the importance of the One Health approach and multisectoral working (particularly in the context of combating antimicrobial resistance), research and development (in the context of work on infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance), and universal health coverage. G7 and G20 summit declarations have tended to neglect non-communicable diseases, environmental pollution, tobacco control, substance abuse, road traffic morbidity and mortality, access to essential medicines via the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and social issues such as equity and the social determinants of health (Kirton & Bracht, 2015; McBride et al., 2019). G7 health commitments are closely aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 3, with commitments corresponding to 24 out of the 28 targets and principles in SDG 3. The G20’s commitments on health are less well aligned to SDG 3, matching only 14 of the 28 targets and principles (McBride et al., 2019). Some authors have criticised G7 and G20 health commitments for not being specific or measurable enough to hold member states to account effectively (Kirton & Bracht, 2015; Horton, 2017; McBride et al., 2019). The G7 and G20 both refer to inclusiveness in the form of supporting work towards universal health coverage, although this is more prevalent for the G7 than for the G20. The G7 included specific references to women’s and girls’ health among their commitments, while no specific references to gender were noted in G20 health-related commitments. No specific references to disability were observed in the summit documents reviewed for this report.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0030.017
Research integrity0.0140.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.015

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpenDocs (Institute of Development Studies)Same topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207