MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414846759 · doi:10.58208/cphs.1532534

An Analysis of the Health Performance of G7 Countries: An Application Using the LPI-HI-Based DNMA Method

2025· article· en· W4414846759 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Furkan Fahri ALTINTAŞ

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Perspectives on Health Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsperityGlobal healthMultiple-criteria decision analysisSensitivity (control systems)Health data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: The purpose of this study is to analyze the health performance of G7 countries. Materials and Methods: In the study, the health performances of G7 countries were measured using the most recent and up-to-date 2023 Legatum Prosperity Index-Health Indicator (LPI-HI) data and the LPI-HI-based DNMA multi-criteria decision-making method (MCDM). Results: The health performance rankings of the countries, based on the LPI-HI-based DNMA method, have been identified as France, UK, Canada, Italy, USA, Germany, and Japan. It was also observed that only France and the UK have health performances exceeding the average performance value. Additionally, according to the sensitivity analysis of the LPI-HI based DNMA MCDM method, it was found to be sensitive; according to the comparative analysis, it was credible and reliable; and according to the simulation analysis, it was robust and stable. Conclusion: It is believed that Canada, Italy, the USA, Germany, and Japan, which have health performances below the average value, need to improve their health performance to contribute more significantly to the global economy. Methodologically, the sensitivity, comparative, and simulation analysis results indicate that the health performances of G7 countries can be measured using the 2023 LPI-HI criteria with the LPI-HI-based DNMA method.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.474 · 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 designObservational
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 venueCurrent Perspectives on Health SciencesSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207