MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410057628 · doi:10.52609/jmlph.v5i3.191

Warzone Healthcare Struggle: The Case of Gaza— A Commentary

2025· article· en· W4410057628 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed Mahmoud Marey, Malak A. Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Medicine Law & Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth carePolitical scienceGaza stripHistoryAncient historyLawPalestine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This commentary examines the effect of the ongoing conflict in Gaza on the delivery of health care. The authors note that the chronic and rapidly evolving nature of the attacks makes the resulting destruction difficult to quantify, and that a siege imposed in 2007 had already impeded health services well before the escalation from 7 October 2023. By September 2024 more than 41,000 Palestinians had been killed and more than 96,000 injured; 90% of the population had faced displacement and 96% food insecurity, with substantial damage to housing, agriculture, water and sanitation systems and the education system. A spatial statistical analysis cited by the authors found that, within the first seven weeks after 7 October 2023, damage fell within 25 metres of 70.1% of health facilities, 75.8% of education facilities and 51.3% of water facilities, which the authors take to suggest violations of international humanitarian law. More than 490 attacks on healthcare facilities had been recorded by July 2024, and a geospatial assessment of 2,000-lb bomb detonations found that in the first six weeks more than 83% of Gaza's hospitals lay within the range of infrastructure damage and injury, and 25% within lethal range. The authors join other researchers and international organisations in calling for an immediate and permanent ceasefire.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0180.019
Scholarly communication0.0170.014
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0880.083
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.356 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Medicine Law & Public HealthSame topicHealth and Conflict StudiesFrench-language works237,207