MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029744446 · doi:10.1186/s13031-020-00276-y

Investigating the delivery of health and nutrition interventions for women and children in conflict settings: a collection of case studies from the BRANCH Consortium

2020· editorial· en· W3029744446 on OpenAlexafffund
Anushka Ataullahjan, Michelle F Gaffey, Samira Sami, Neha Singh, Hannah Tappis, Robert E. Black, Karl Blanchet, Ties Boerma, Ana Langer, Paul Spiegel, Ronald J. Waldman, Paul H. Wise, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Bibliographic record

VenueConflict and Health · 2020
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersDirektoratet for UtviklingssamarbeidInternational Development Research CentreUNICEFBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsPsychological interventionPublic healthCompendiumMedicineNegotiationHealth services researchHealth policyEnvironmental healthNursingPublic relationsPolitical scienceSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Globally, the number of people affected by conflict is the highest in history, and continues to steadily increase. There is currently a pressing need to better understand how to deliver critical health interventions to women and children affected by conflict. The compendium of articles presented in this Conflict and Health Collection brings together a range of case studies recently undertaken by the BRANCH Consortium (Bridging Research & Action in Conflict Settings for the Health of Women and Children). These case studies describe how humanitarian actors navigate and negotiate the multiple obstacles and forces that challenge the delivery of health and nutrition interventions for women, children and adolescents in conflict-affected settings, and to ultimately provide some insight into how service delivery can be improved.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConflict and HealthSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207