MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Putting gender upfront in One Health AMR research and implementation strategies

2024· article· en· W4396519807 on OpenAlexaff
Erica Westwood, Evelyn Baraké, Jyoti Joshi

Bibliographic record

VenueCABI One Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicZoonotic diseases and public health
Canadian institutionsInternational Development Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite a gendered approach being increasingly applied across global health challenges, this has been a notable oversight in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) research. Failing to consider the complexity of human behaviours and roles in healthcare, animal production, and environmental settings compromises programmatic effectiveness and sustainability, while risking entrenching or widening existing social disparities. Research demonstrates how gender norms influence health-related behaviours across various sectors, from accessing healthcare to livestock rearing, with strong implications for antimicrobial stewardship and zoonotic disease transmission. The sparse literature connecting and investigating gender, equity and AMR – especially in a One Health context – hampers our ability to comprehensively address this global issue. The responsibility is however shared. This commentary advocates for funders to propel the inclusion of gender and equity-focused perspectives in AMR research and to set expectations in research landscapes, thus fostering a more equitable global health landscape and strengthening strategies against AMR. We outline our rationale and recommendations for other funders to support an ecosystem in AMR that supports gender and equity as a common aspect of AMR research and not an exception. One Health impact statement While AMR is increasingly recognised as a One Health challenge encompassing humans, animals, plants and the environment, sector-specific and cross-sectoral solutions needed to address AMR too often lack the multidisciplinary approach needed for a holistic response to this challenge. To date, AMR research has been largely biomedical, with limited social investigation including on gender and its interplay with factors that drive AMR in different settings such as healthcare, community or farm settings. Intentionally integrating gender analysis that informs AMR research design and implementation across sectors, including with supportive research funding opportunities, will help build the evidence base on how research projects and public programs should integrate and address gender disparities in AMR across the One Health spectrum. This is needed to ensure contextually relevant gender-informed solutions with sustainable impact.

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)0.313
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.272
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3130.272
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.034
Scholarly communication0.0250.034
Open science0.0080.047
Research integrity0.0200.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.003

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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCABI One HealthSame topicZoonotic diseases and public healthFrench-language works237,207