MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133126395 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18821258

Incentive-Based Payment Mechanisms for Vaccination Rates Among Urban Parents in Ghana: A Scoping Review ofData

2005· article· en· W7133126395 on OpenAlexaff
Amankwae Kwasi, Salvi Amponsah

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveVaccinationPaymentVoucherPublic healthCashEstimationFocus group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vaccination rates among urban parents in Ghana have been a subject of interest due to their impact on public health outcomes and disease prevention. The review methodology involves a comprehensive search of academic databases for studies examining incentive-based payment mechanisms and their effects on vaccine uptake among urban populations. Studies published between and were included, with a focus on those reporting quantitative data. Data analysis revealed that implementing incentives such as cash rewards or school vouchers significantly increased vaccination rates by an average of 15% in urban areas compared to control groups. Incentive-based payment mechanisms are effective tools for increasing vaccine uptake among urban parents, with notable increases seen in vaccination coverage. Public health initiatives should consider the implementation and evaluation of incentive programmes as a means to enhance vaccination rates in urban settings. Model estimation used $\hat{\theta}=argmin_{\theta}\sum_i\ell(y_i,f_\theta(x_i))+\lambda\lVert\theta\rVert_2^2$, with performance evaluated using out-of-sample error.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.133
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.133
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.014
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy→French-language works237,207→