MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117297133 · doi:10.1080/00083968.2025.2592749

Navigating a polycrisis: barriers to maternal healthcare access in Burkina Faso

2025· article· en· W7117297133 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Thomas Druetz, Neda Firouraghi, Cheick Tiendrebeogo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSafeguardingPublic healthMaternal healthPoliticsReproductive healthEnvironmental degradationHealth careHealthcare systemDeveloping country

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burkina Faso exemplifies a polycrisis, where overlapping sociopolitical, health, security and environmental disruptions collectively undermine public health progress. Despite decades of advancement in maternal and reproductive healthcare – through policies like fee abolition and expanded health facilities – recent crises have severely eroded these gains. Since 2014, Burkina Faso has faced escalating insecurity, becoming the world’s most terrorism-affected country, compounded by political instability following the ousting of long-time president Blaise Compaoré, repeated coups and increasingly militarized regimes. Simultaneously, the nation is grappling with deep economic inequality, environmental degradation and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. These intertwined crises disproportionately impact the most vulnerable, deepening healthcare inequities. Emerging research highlights how this converging crisis landscape threatens access to quality maternal care, jeopardizing two decades of progress. Recognizing the polycrisis as a public health threat is critical to safeguarding maternal and reproductive health achievements in Burkina Faso and developing more resilient health systems amid compounded adversities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africainesSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207