MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414357598 · doi:10.5334/gh.1467

WHF Position Statement for United Nations Fourth High-Level Meeting-2025

2025· article· en· W4414357598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. Srinath Reddy, Bente Mikkelsen, George A. Mensah, Philip J. Landrigan, Amam Mbakwem, Renu Garg, Jeremiah Mwangi, Sean Taylor, Pablo Perel, Borjana Pervan, Finn-Jarle Rode, Daniel Piñeiro, Dorairaj Prabhakaran, Jagat Narula

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Heart · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition statementStatement (logic)Position (finance)Position paper

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the world gauges progress towards the SDG targets set for 2030, it is becoming evident that most countries are not on track to achieving them. Collective resolve among all nations and pooled global resources are needed to accelerate progress to reach as close to those targets as possible. It is also clear that commitment to those targets must continue beyond 2030 since many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) will most likely experience rising burdens of non-communicable diseases (NCD) for some decades beyond the SDG dateline and to ensure commitment from the global community. This is especially true for target 3.4, including cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory diseases, and mental health, which are responsible for over 43 million deaths worldwide every year, with 18 million dying prematurely before the age of 70 years, and also cause the majority of morbidity and disability.1 This is because ongoing demographic, nutritional, and environmental transitions in those countries will result in an accelerated incidence of NCD in the future. The inequities between and within countries are huge. The probability of premature deaths in Western Europe and Canada is as low as 15 percent, while it remains as high as 52 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal HeartSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207