MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401689712 · doi:10.1016/j.lana.2024.100868

Pan-American data initiative for the analysis of population racial/ethnic health inequities: the Pan-DIASPORA project

2024· article· en· W4401689712 on OpenAlexafffund
Mabel Carabalí, Sharrelle Barber, Andrêa Jacqueline Fortes Ferreira, Ana Ortigoza, Dandara de Oliveira Ramos, Emanuelle Freitas Góes, Arjumand Siddiqi, Diego Lucumí, Dennis Perez-Chacon, John W. Jackson, Huda Bashir, Yazmín Castillo Sánchez, Yasmine M. Elmi, Céline M. Goulart, Claudia Y Perea-Aragon, Randy L. Grillo, Diana Higuera-Mendieta, Khardjatou Marianne Djigo, Vanessa de Melo-Ferreira, M. Martinez

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Regional Health - Americas · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill UniversityDrexel UniversityUniversity of TorontoJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsDiasporaEthnic groupPopulationAsian americansGeographyPolitical scienceDemographyGender studiesSociologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Americas region includes Anglophone North America, Latin America (including Spanish, French and Portuguese-speaking countries and territories in North, Central, and South America), and the Caribbean (including Anglophone, Spanish-speaking, and Francophone countries and territories).1 Within this multi-racial and ethnic region, nearly 200 million individuals self-identify as Afro-descendants (i.e., individuals tracing their lineage back to Africa) and 58 million individuals self-identify as Indigenous people.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.015
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.664
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.062 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Regional Health - AmericasSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207