MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023305314 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.05.003

Global vaccine action plan lessons learned I: Recommendations for the next decade

2020· article· en· W3023305314 on OpenAlexaff
Noni MacDonald, Ezzeddine Mohsni, Yagob Al-Mazrou, Jon Kim Andrus, Narendra K. Arora, Susan Elden, Marie-Yvette Madrid, Rebecca Martin, Amani Mahmoud Mustafa, Helen Rees, David Salisbury, Qinjian Zhao, Ian Jones, Christoph A. Steffen, Joachim Hombach, Katherine L. O’Brien, Alejandro Cravioto

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsGroup Health CentreIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersWorld Health OrganizationBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsAction planSuccessor cardinalImmunizationAccountabilityPolitical scienceGlobal strategyGlobal healthPublic relationsPlan (archaeology)BusinessMedicineEconomic growthImmunologyGeographyHealth careManagementEconomicsMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020 (GVAP) was developed to realize the ambitions of the Decade of Vaccines - that all individuals and communities enjoy lives free from vaccine-preventable diseases. It included a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation/accountability framework to assess progress towards global targets with recommendations for corrective actions. While many of the GVAP targets are very unlikely to be met by the end of 2020, substantial progress has nevertheless been made, establishing a strong foundation for a successor global immunization strategy, the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030). The Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization has made a series of recommendations to ensure that the lessons learned from GVAP inform the development and implementation of IA2030.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.272
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations109
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccineSame topicViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchFrench-language works237,207