MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W764796268 · doi:10.1177/030089160909500506

Critical factors influencing the establishment, maintenance and sustainability of population-based cancer control programs

2009· article· en· W764796268 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Trapido, Josep M. Borràs, Robert C. Burton, Massoud Samiei, Mark Elwood

Bibliographic record

VenueTumori Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityControl (management)Resource (disambiguation)PopulationBusinessPublic healthRisk analysis (engineering)Knowledge managementMedicineEnvironmental healthComputer scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing and maintaining a comprehensive cancer control program are two distinct entities. Key issues related to building and sustaining cancer control programs include how to integrate initiatives and efforts across multiple constituencies addressing components of the implementation of cancer control and non-communicable disease programs, the processes used in different resource settings to achieve effective drug budgeting, health technology assessment and health economics, and how countries can support public and societal engagement. There are promising examples in both resource-rich and resource-challenged countries of constituencies that have developed programs which can contribute to comprehensive cancer control. Some take advantage of newer technology and information services, while others are more people and patient focused. Critical issues and factors for establishing and maintaining population-based comprehensive cancer control programs are identified and reviewed.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTumori JournalSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207