MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249474883 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011086

Implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews

2014· reference-entry· en· W4249474883 on OpenAlexaff
Tomás Pantoja, Newton Opiyo, Agustín Ciapponi, Lilian Dudley, Marie‐Pierre Gagnon, Cristián Herrera, Simon Lewin, Sebastián García Martí, Andrew D Oxman, Elizabeth Paulsen, Blanca Peñaloza, Gabriel Rada, Jimmy Volmink, Charles Shey Wiysonge

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHôpital Saint-François d'Assise
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewProtocol (science)Management scienceTable (database)Computer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementMedicineMEDLINEBusinessAlternative medicinePolitical scienceEngineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Overview). The objectives are as follows: The objectives of the overview are to: provide a broad overview of what is known from up‐to‐date systematic reviews about the effects of implementation strategies for health systems in low‐income countries; identify needs and priorities for evaluations of alternative implementation strategies based on the findings of included systematic review; identify needs and priorities for systematic reviews of the effects of implementation strategies for which we are unable to find a reliable, up‐to‐date systematic review; inform decisions about refinements of the framework for types of implementation strategies outlined in Table 1.

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)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.165
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.165
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.017
Bibliometrics0.0330.031
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations42
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207