Strengthening the Monitoring of States’ Compliance with the International Health Regulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The current article aims to undertake a retrospective and a prospective analysis of compliance monitoring under the International Health Regulations of 2005 ( ihr (2005 )). First, different theoretical understandings of compliance are discussed. The study then focuses on a ‘triad’ of obligations under the ihr (2005): 1) to timely and effectively notify the World Health Organization ( who ) of events that may constitute public health emergencies of international concern (Article 6 ihr ); 2) to notify and justify additional health measures restricting international travel and trade in response to events elsewhere (Article 43 ihr ); and, 3) to build minimum core capacities required to conduct pandemic surveillance and response activities (Article 5 ihr ). The retrospective analysis revisits the fate of past and current mechanisms of compliance monitoring under the ihr (2005). Lastly, a prospective formulation builds upon the elements of the retrospective analysis, sketching a possible way forward for monitoring of compliance with the ihr (2005).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".