MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365450338 · doi:10.9745/ghsp-d-23-00102

Ten Years for GHSP: Where Are We Now? Where Will We Go?

2023· letter· en· W4365450338 on OpenAlexaff
Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Rajani Ved, Nana Twum-Danso, Abdulmumin Saad, Stephen Hodgins

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Science and Practice · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of AlbertaCentre for Global Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I n 2013, Global Health: Science and Practice (GHSP) launched with funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development.From the beginning, GHSP's vision was to leverage knowledge gleaned from the implementation of health programs and services to improve programs and, ultimately, health outcomes and well-being.Shortly after GHSP's launch, in 2016, the world transitioned from the Millennium Development Goals to the more wide-ranging Sustainable Development Goals.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.012
Scholarly communication0.0130.014
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.1200.106
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.009

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health Science and PracticeSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207