MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405430334 · doi:10.32920/ihtp.v4i3.2102

Peace and child health in Sub-Saharan Africa: The demographic cost paid by young children during and after civil wars

2024· article· en· W4405430334 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michel Garenne

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Health Trends and Perspectives · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChild healthPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthPsychologyMedicineDemographySociologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study describes changing trends in child mortality in selected African countries that suffered civil wars. After an overview of political developments following independence, the study draws a contrast between countries who suffered a civil war and others having remained in peace during the same period. The war case-studies were the following: Angola 1975-2002; Mozambique 1977-1992, Rwanda 1990-1999, Burundi 1988-2005; Uganda 1971-1986; Congo-Brazza 1993-2002; Liberia 1989-2003; Sierra-Leone 1991-2002. The study focuses on the impact of destructions and dysfunctions in health systems on child survival during and after the war period since it takes several years after a conflict for full recovery of the health system. The study discusses the frailty of newly independent states, economic downturns and mismanagement, the difficulties of decolonization, the role of the great powers and competing ideologies during the Cold War period, and the divisions resulting from ethnic rivalries to conquer political power. Overall, the study found an indirect impact (~4.9 million deaths) as high as the estimated direct impact of civil wars.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Health Trends and PerspectivesSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207