MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413186536 · doi:10.1016/s2352-4642(25)00190-7

Global research priority-setting exercise on the sexual and reproductive health and rights of young adolescents

2025· review· en· W4413186536 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maria Lohan, Aoibheann Brennan‐Wilson, Melissa Bradshaw, Sheri Bastien, Prerna Banati, John Garry, A. López Gómez, Caroline Moreau, Chunyan Yu, Kristin Mmari, Md Mizanur Rahman, Caroline W. Kabiru, Mark Tomlinson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Child & Adolescent Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAfrican Population and Health Research CenterQueen's University BelfastUnited Nations Development ProgrammeUNICEFStyrelsen för Internationellt UtvecklingssamarbeteWorld Health OrganizationWorld Bank GroupQueen's UniversityBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsReproductive healthSexual and reproductive health and rightsMEDLINEYoung adultMedicinePsychologyReproductive rightsGerontologyEnvironmental healthPolitical sciencePopulation

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Child & Adolescent HealthSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207