MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403049856 · doi:10.17269/s41997-024-00947-w

The challenging concept of eradication: A core concept guiding and frustrating public health

2024· article· en· W4403049856 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arthur J. Caplan, Nathaniel Mamo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsPoliomyelitis eradicationPublic healthDisease EradicationSmallpoxPoliomyelitisIntervention (counseling)PandemicDiseaseMedicinePublic relationsInfectious disease (medical specialty)Political scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NursingVaccinationVirologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The celebrated 1980 announcement that smallpox had been eradicated was made using the following definition of eradication: "Permanent reduction to zero of the worldwide incidence of infection caused by a specific agent as a result of deliberate efforts: intervention measures are no longer needed." Public health around the world works with this definition of "eradication," setting it as a goal for other infectious disease control programs. The definition is simple. Its application, however, has produced long-running and complex public health campaigns that threaten the commitment of funders, health care providers, and governments. In this paper, the authors demonstrate the disease-specific challenges of eradication through the example of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI). While many deem eradication worth its high costs because it is the end of morbidity and mortality from a disease, it does not mean the end of disease control efforts. Public health must be prepared for the possibility of disease reoccurrence in the form of undetected natural reservoirs of disease, lab leaks from stored samples, bioterror attacks using stolen samples, and the synthetic recreation of microbes. This paper clarifies the role of reoccurrence prevention in eradication, calling for its addition in the definition of eradication.

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.159
Scholarly communication0.0190.026
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0200.051
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 venueCanadian Journal of Public Health→Same topicViral gastroenteritis research and epidemiology→French-language works237,207→