MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978044835 · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(19)30415-3

A governance framework for development and assessment of national action plans on antimicrobial resistance

2019· review· en· W2978044835 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael Anderson, Kai Schulze, Alessandro Cassini, Diamantis Plachouras, Elías Mossialos

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Infectious Diseases · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAntibiotic Use and Resistance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPan American Health OrganizationBundesministerium für Ernährung und LandwirtschaftMinistry of Health of the People's Republic of ChinaUniversidad de Buenos AiresZhejiang UniversityUniversiteit GentFudan UniversityBundesministerium für GesundheitPublic Health AgencyEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and ControlPublic Health Agency of CanadaDepartment of Health and Social CareSveriges LantbruksuniversitetBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWorld Health OrganizationEuropean CommissionLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceUniversity of LagosU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesPew Charitable TrustsFolkhälsomyndighetenUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsCorporate governanceContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Action (physics)Political scienceProcess (computing)CommissionProcess managementAdaptation (eye)BusinessPublic administrationEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations123
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntibiotic Use and ResistanceFrench-language works237,207