MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409240599 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(25)00488-x

Achieving gender justice for global health equity: the Lancet Commission on gender and global health

2025· review· en· W4409240599 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Hawkes, Elhadj As Sy, Gary Barker, Fran Baum, Kent Buse, Angela Y Chang, Beniamino Cislaghi, Jocalyn Clark, Raewyn Connell, Morna Cornell, Gary L. Darmstadt, Carmen Simone Grilo Diniz, Sharon Friel, Indrani Gupta, Sofia Gruskin, Sarah Hill, Renu Khanna, Jeni Klugman, Aaron Koay, Vivian Lin, Khadija T Moalla, Erica Nelson, Leon Robinson, Nina Schwalbe, Ravi Verma, Virginia Zarulli

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
FundersFogarty International CenterNational Institute of Mental HealthUniversity College LondonNational Institutes of HealthNational Health and Medical Research CouncilUniversity of CambridgeUniversity of AdelaideArrow Bone Marrow Transplant FoundationNottingham Trent UniversityAustralian Research CouncilWellcome TrustStanford UniversityFord Foundation
KeywordsCommissionGender equityEquity (law)Health equityGlobal healthEconomic JusticePolitical scienceMedicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthEconomic growthHealth careEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0160.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.493
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations46
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207