Women's Health in Developing Countries: Beyond an Investment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most international programs and policies devised to improve women's health in developing countries have been shaped by powerful agencies and development ideologies, including the tendency to view women solely through the lens of instrumentalism (i.e., as a means to an end). In a literature review, the authors followed the trail of instrumentalism by reviewing the different approaches and paradigms that have guided international development initiatives over the past 50 years. The analysis focuses on three key approaches to international development: the economic development, public health, and women-gender approaches. The findings indicate that progressive changes have adopted a more inclusive development perspective that is potentially beneficial to women's health. On the other hand, most paradigms have largely viewed improving women's lives in general, and their health in particular, as an investment or a means to development rather than an end in itself. Public health strategies did not escape the instrumentalism entrenched in the broader development paradigms. Although there was an opportunity for progress in the 1990s with the emergence of the human development and human rights paradigms and critical advances in Cairo and Beijing promoting women's agency, the current Millennium Development Goals project seems to have relapsed into instrumentalism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".