MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014792282 · doi:10.2196/19043

The Three Steps Needed to End the COVID-19 Pandemic: Bold Public Health Leadership, Rapid Innovations, and Courageous Political Will

2020· article· en· W3014792282 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jodie L. Guest, Carlos del Rı́o, Travis Sanchez

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthPandemicPublic relationsHealth carePoliticsExpansivePolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineEconomic growthNursingEconomicsLawDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The world is experiencing the expansive spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a global pandemic that is placing strain on health care, economic, and social systems. Commitment to implementing proven public health strategies will require bold public health leadership and courageous acts by politicians. Developing new innovative communication, mitigation, and health care approaches, particularly in the era of social media, is also clearly warranted. We believe that the best public health evidence must inform activities in three priority areas to stop this pandemic: (1) coordinated and consistent stay-at-home orders across multiple jurisdictions, including potential nationwide mandates; (2) rapid scale-up of SARS-CoV-2 testing; and (3) improved health care capacity to respond. This editorial outlines those areas, the rationale behind them, and the call for innovation and engagement of bold public health leadership to empower courageous political action to reduce the number of deaths during this pandemic.

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)0.058
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0150.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.007

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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.138 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations164
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207