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 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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0190.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.021

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 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

Citations109
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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