MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1751817640 · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-3-3

The role of NGOs in global health research for development

2005· article· en· W1751817640 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hélène Delisle, Janet Hatcher Roberts, Michelle L. Munro‐Kramer, Lori Jones, Theresa W. Gyorkos

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Research Policy and Systems · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsCARE CanadaMontreal General HospitalCanadian Society for International HealthUniversité de Montréal
FundersNew Partnership for Africa's DevelopmentInternational Development Research CentreUnited Nations Development ProgrammeWorld Health Organization
KeywordsHealth services researchGeneral partnershipGlobal healthPublic relationsPolitical scienceStewardship (theology)Health policyCapacity buildingKnowledge translationEconomic growthPublic healthMedicinePoliticsNursingKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Global health research is essential for development. A major issue is the inequitable distribution of research efforts and funds directed towards populations suffering the world's greatest health problems. This imbalance is fostering major attempts at redirecting research to the health problems of low and middle income countries. Following the creation of the Coalition for Global Health Research - Canada (CGHRC) in 2001, the Canadian Society for International Health (CSIH) decided to review the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in global health research. This paper highlights some of the prevalent thinking and is intended to encourage new thinking on how NGOs can further this role. APPROACH: This paper was prepared by members of the Research Committee of the CSIH, with input from other members of the Society. Persons working in various international NGOs participated in individual interviews or group discussions on their involvement in different types of research activities. Case studies illustrate the roles of NGOs in global health research, their perceived strengths and weaknesses, and the constraints and opportunities to build capacity and develop partnerships for research. HIGHLIGHTS: NGOs are contributing at all stages of the research cycle, fostering the relevance and effectiveness of the research, priority setting, and knowledge translation to action. They have a key role in stewardship (promoting and advocating for relevant global health research), resource mobilization for research, the generation, utilization and management of knowledge, and capacity development. Yet, typically, the involvement of NGOs in research is downstream from knowledge production and it usually takes the form of a partnership with universities or dedicated research agencies. CONCLUSION: There is a need to more effectively include NGOs in all aspects of health research in order to maximize the potential benefits of research. NGOs, moreover, can and should play an instrumental role in coalitions for global health research, such as the CGHRC. With a renewed sense of purpose and a common goal, NGOs and their partners intend to make strong and lasting inroads into reducing the disease burden of the world's most affected populations through effective research action.

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)0.162
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1620.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0270.078
Scholarly communication0.0300.018
Open science0.0030.035
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.414
GPT teacher head0.598
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainIncentives
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

Citations131
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Research Policy and SystemsSame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207