MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033870810 · doi:10.9745/ghsp-d-20-00217

Will the Higher-Income Country Blueprint for COVID-19 Work in Low- and Lower Middle-Income Countries?

2020· editorial· en· W3033870810 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Hodgins, Abdulmumin Saad

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Science and Practice · 2020
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlueprintLow and middle income countriesMiddle incomeCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Work (physics)PovertyMiddle income countryIncome distributionBusinessDeveloping countryDemographic economicsDevelopment economicsEconomicsEconomic growthInequalityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key Message Strategies currently pursued in high-income and upper middle-income countries—aimed at radically suppressing incidence of COVID-19—may be unrealistic and counterproductive in most low- and lower middle-income countries. Instead, strategies need to be tailored to the setting, balancing expected benefits, potential harms, and feasibility.

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)0.086
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0240.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.024

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations39
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health Science and PracticeSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207