MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402695722 · doi:10.5376/jmr.2024.14.0018

Global Collaboration in Research and Data Sharing for Mosquito-Borne Diseases

2024· article· en· W4402695722 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guanli Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mosquito Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData sharingData scienceComputer scienceMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mosquito-borne diseases remain a significant global public health challenge, requiring coordinated international collaboration to address. This study reviews the current state of research and data sharing in this field, emphasizing the critical role of global collaboration in advancing the understanding and control of these diseases. It explores the existing research efforts, the importance of data sharing, and the various challenges faced in establishing effective global networks, including issues related to data accessibility, privacy, and standardization. Through the analysis of key platforms and initiatives, such as international consortia, data repositories, and regional networks, the study highlights their contributions to enhancing collaboration. Case studies on malaria, dengue, and Zika are used to demonstrate the successes and ongoing challenges in global data sharing and response efforts. Finally, this study discusses strategies for overcoming existing barriers, the potential of emerging technologies, and the future of international collaboration in improving public health outcomes. The findings underscore the importance of sustained global collaboration and the need for robust frameworks to facilitate effective data sharing and research in the fight against mosquito-borne diseases.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearchOpen science
Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptMetaresearchScholarly communicationOpen science
Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.114
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1140.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0150.015
Open science0.0030.029
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

MetaresearchOpen scienceScholarly communication

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual · Not applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreEmpirical · Commentary

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 venueJournal of Mosquito ResearchSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207