MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401825229 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(24)00121-9

Improving urban health through primary health care in south Asia

2024· review· en· W4401825229 on OpenAlexaff
Mohan Bairwa, Akriti Mehta, Sana Hyat, Rushdiá Ahmed, Lalini C. Rajapaksa, Alayne M. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Global Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Economic growthUrbanizationBusinessPublic healthSocial determinants of healthSocioeconomic statusGovernment (linguistics)Health careHealth equityPublic sectorPrivate sectorService delivery frameworkEnvironmental healthSocioeconomicsGeographyMedicinePopulationPolitical scienceService (business)NursingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

South Asia is rapidly urbanising. The strains of rapid urbanisation have profound implications for the health and equity of urban populations. This Series paper examines primary health care (PHC) in south Asian cities. Health and its social determinants vary considerably across south Asian cities and substantial socioeconomic inequities are present. Although cities offer easy geographical access to PHC services, financial hardship associated with health care use and low quality of care are a concern, particularly for low-income residents. Providing better PHC in south Asia requires a multi-sectoral response, with effective and resourced urban local bodies; increased public financing for health care; and new service delivery models aimed at low-income urban communities that involve strengthening public sector services, strengthening government engagement with private providers where necessary, and engaging with low-income communities and the PHC providers that serve them.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Global HealthSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207