MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411499494 · doi:10.1186/s12939-025-02536-w

A grand plan for health equity

2025· review· en· W4411499494 on OpenAlexaff
Wei-Ching Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Equity in Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsNorth Island CollegeUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth equityOperationalizationSocial determinants of healthEquity (law)Health policyGlobal healthSocial policyHealth careHealth promotionPolitical sciencePublic relationsSociologyPublic economicsEconomic growthEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

'Equity in health' means health for all, given our potentials and limitations. Its goal is to help each and every one of us achieve his/her optimal health by providing needed personal, social and environmental support.To promote health equity, both systematic and random variations in health status must be considered. There are numerous barriers to health equity, including the deep-rooted and dominant cultures of neoliberalism, nationalism, personal and political callousness, and technological imperative, which are responsible for widespread health inequities today. Proper conceptual frameworks are required to work towards health equity, including doughnut economics, planetary health, universal basic income, peaceful dispute resolution, an open-world strategy, and a global compassionate and cooperative culture. It is our moral obligation to be respectful and generous to others and work together cooperatively to refine, operationalize, and implement such conceptual frameworks to make the world a better place in support of global health equity.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.007

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Equity in HealthSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207