MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254298481 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-207571/v1

Assessing How Global Health Partnerships Function: An equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis

2021· preprint· en· W4254298481 on OpenAlexafffund
Katrina Plamondon, Ben Brisbois, Leslie Dubent, Charles P. Larson

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Coalition for Global Health ResearchUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
KeywordsEquity (law)Function (biology)Health equityBusinessPublic economicsPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growthHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.184
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.310
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1840.310
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0150.010
Science and technology studies0.0060.032
Scholarly communication0.0280.035
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.307
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207