MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consulting firms in the public management of epidemics. A scoping-review protocol v1

2022· preprint· en· W4210478095 on OpenAlexaff
Lucille Gallardo, Lara Gautier, Fanny Chabrol, Lola Traverson, Sydia Rosana de Araújo Oliveira, Valéry Ridde

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHIV/AIDS Impact and Responses
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)Protocol (science)Public managementBusinessState (computer science)Knowledge managementPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceMedicineLibrary scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this scoping review is to produce a state of knowledge about the role of private consulting firms in the public management of epidemics. The review will also identify theories, approaches and methods used by researchers to study this subject.

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)0.136
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.242
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1360.242
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0260.025
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0100.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.010

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHIV/AIDS Impact and ResponsesFrench-language works237,207