MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090916695 · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003549

Symptoms of a broken system: the gender gaps in COVID-19 decision-making

2020· article· en· W3090916695 on OpenAlexaff
Kim Robin van Daalen, Csongor Bajnoczki, Maisoon Chowdhury, Sara Dada, Parnian Khorsand, Anna Socha, Arush Lal, Laura Jung, Lujain Alqodmani, Irene Torres, Samiratou Ouédraogo, Amina Jama Mahmud, Roopa Dhatt, Alexandra Phelan, Dheepa Rajan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Global Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Challenges
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec
FundersWorld Health OrganizationBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsCorporate governanceSexual orientationPower (physics)Diversity (politics)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Race (biology)Political scienceSociologyPsychologyGender studiesMedicineBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing chorus of voices are questioning the glaring lack of women in COVID-19 decision-making bodies. Men dominating leadership positions in global health has long been the default mode of governing. This is a symptom of a broken system where governance is not inclusive of any type of diversity, be it gender, geography, sexual orientation, race, socio-economic status or disciplines within and beyond health – excluding those who offer unique perspectives, expertise and lived realities. This not only reinforces inequitable power structures but undermines an effective COVID-19 response – ultimately costing lives.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0170.052
Scholarly communication0.0090.016
Open science0.0030.024
Research integrity0.0050.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations100
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Global HealthSame topicHealthcare Systems and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207