MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403462383 · doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwae036

Lawrence O. Gostin and Benjamin Mason Meier (eds), <i>Global Health Law &amp; Policy: Ensuring Justice for a Healthier World</i>

2024· article· en· W4403462383 on OpenAlexaff
Aileen Editha

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Law Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticeLawQueen (butterfly)Political scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subject of global health has risen in prominence and attention in recent decades. From various catastrophes such as the Ebola outbreak and the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, to environmental destruction marked by rising temperatures and increased zoonotic spillovers, these events contour the limits of national laws and borders in ensuring public health for all. As highlighted by the editors of the book, Lawrence O. Gostin (Georgetown University) and Benjamin Mason Meier (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), global health law is indeed a ‘field [of study] born of trying times’ (p xv); even as global challenges reach an unprecedented high, ‘national governments have rejected public health science, violated human rights, and undermined global solidarity’ (p xv). It is now perhaps more important than ever to explore how we can guarantee and safeguard health equity for all individuals on a global scale. Global health law and policy ‘encompasses the study and practice of international law—both “hard” law treaties that bind states and “soft” law instruments that shape norms, processes, and institutions to realize the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health throughout the world’ (p 1). This clarification is both necessary and helpful since global health governance is a relatively novel area that must be distinguished and differentiated from the field of ‘international health’. As Gostin and Meier remarked, the latter has been a ‘colonial practice that historically focused on controlling infectious disease across national borders’ (p 2). The ‘international health’ approach, as a result, has always ‘narrowly focused on international legal relationships among states’ (p 5). In contrast, global health law and policy approaches ‘health’ broadly, various ‘horizontal approaches to address public health… [and] determinants of health across sectors—from education, employment, and income to behaviors related to infectious and noncommunicable diseases’ (p 2). This broad approach also acknowledges that there must be ‘cooperative partnerships among state and non-state actors and soft law approaches to global health policy’ (p 5).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.009

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.389 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMedical Law ReviewSame topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207