Analyzing antimicrobial resistance as a series of collective action problems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) causes over 1.27 million deaths annually, making it one of today's most urgent health threats. Given its urgency, there are often calls for large‐scale global initiatives to address AMR. However, theories of collective action have yet to be applied to the problem in a systematic and holistic manner. Fuller engagement with collective action theory is necessary to avoid three risks, namely: mischaracterizing the kinds of challenges that AMR presents; over‐simplifying the problem by reducing it to a single type of collective action problem while ignoring others; and overstating the ability of collective action theory to formulate effective solutions. This article relies on the work of Elinor Ostrom to develop an analytical framework for collective action problems around public and common goods. When analyzed through this framework, we find that AMR poses at least nine distinct collective action problems. This more granular framing of AMR provides, in our view, a better basis to develop policy solutions to address this multifaceted challenge. We conclude with proposals for future research.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it