MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178918063 · doi:10.1002/hpm.3286

Developing COVID‐19 emergency response centres in geographically challenged areas of Pakistan: A case study of the Aga Khan Development Network

2021· article· en· W3178918063 on OpenAlexaff
Rafat Jan, Miraj Uddin, Ihsan Ullah, Mubarek Bibi, Sardar Nawaz, Mehnaz Rehmani, Salima Meherali

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Health Planning and Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicGovernment (linguistics)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health careEconomic growthRural areaGeographyHealthcare serviceHealthcare systemBusinessMedicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inevitable COVID-19 global pandemic has severely affected Pakistan's fragile healthcare system. The system was already facing a significant burden of noncommunicable and other infectious diseases, and the pandemic further exacerbated the disease and the healthcare burden in Pakistan. In such a situation, people who live in geographically challenged areas with limited healthcare infrastructure and resources are more vulnerable to the impacts of a pandemic. The authors share the experience of the development of emergency response centres (ERCs) in the rural remote mountainous regions of Pakistan-Chitral, an initiative that the Government of Pakistan and Aga Khan Health Service Pakistan (AKHSP) implemented to manage the increasing rates of COVID-19 cases in these areas. The authors outline the processes that need to be undertaken to develop such healthcare facilities in a short period of time and discusses the challenges of establishing and operating these centres and the lessons learnt during and after the development of these centres in the remote mountainous regions of Pakistan.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.291
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Health Planning and ManagementSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207