MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403501554 · doi:10.1002/hpm.3861

Roadmap for rebuilding the health system and scenarios of crisis path in Gaza

2024· article· en· W4403501554 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Alkhaldi, Malak Alrubaie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Health Planning and Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Gaza stripPublic healthState (computer science)Psychological resiliencePolitical sciencePopulationBusinessPalestineMedicineEnvironmental healthComputer scienceNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The horrific attacks on Gaza have had a profound impact on Gaza's health system, culminating in a multidimensional crisis. The deliberate destruction of vital infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, housing, and public facilities, coupled with the deaths and injuries of medical personnel and support workers has only exacerbated the situation and further highlighted the existing gaps. This unprecedented catastrophe proves the criticality of adopting a new national inclusive integrated approach to meeting the immediate and long-term needs of the population. In this perspective, we explore the recovery roadmap features for rebuilding the health system in Gaza, specifically focusing on determining the primary challenges that might emerge, the trajectory of recovery, and the expected crisis scenarios. The existing evidence and perspectives of key stakeholders, including state and non-state health authorities in Palestine were synthesised. Despite some local and international initiatives undertaken to generate a concrete road to recovery, there remains a need for realistic, innovative, and comprehensive Marshall plans to rebuild Gaza's health system. The article draws on insights and gaps in current efforts and underscores the urgent need to address the challenges of rebuilding the health system. The authors strive to offer an inclusive and realistic path with the potential scenarios toward recovery and resilience considering the mass levels of loss and damage, and ways to move forward for building back a resilient health system in Gaza.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.378 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Health Planning and ManagementSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207