Global health diplomacy: Barriers to inserting health into Canadian foreign policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health opportunities and risks have become increasingly global in both cause and consequence. Governments have been slow to recognise the global dimensions of health, although this is beginning to change. A new concept - global health diplomacy (GHD) - has evolved to describe how health is now being positioned within national foreign policies and entering into regional or multilateral negotiations. Traditionally, health negotiations have been seen as 'low politics' in international affairs: however, attention is now being given to understanding better how health can increase its prominence in foreign policy priorities and multilateral forums. We sought to identify how these efforts were manifested in Canada, with a focus on current barriers to inserting health in foreign policy. We conducted individual interviews with Canadian informants who were well placed through their diplomatic experience and knowledge to address this issue. Barriers identified by the respondents included a lack of content expertise (scientific and technical understanding of health and its practice), insufficient diplomatic expertise (the practice and art of diplomacy, including legal and technical expertise), the limited ways in which health has become framed as a foreign policy issue, funding limitations and cuts for global health, and lack of cross-sectoral policy coordination and coherence, given the important role that non-health foreign policy interests (notably in trade and investment liberalisation) can play in shaping global health outcomes. We conclude with some reflections on how regime change and domestic government ideology can also function as a barrier to GHD, and what this implies for retaining or expanding the placement of health in foreign policy.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".