Parallel NGO Networks for HIV Control: Risks and Opportunities for NGO Contracting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policy measures for preventive and promotive services are increasingly reliant on contracting of NGOs. Contracting is a neo-liberal response relying on open market competition for service delivery tenders. In contracting of health services a common assumption is a monolithic NGO market. A case study of HIV control in Pakistan shows that in reality the NGO market comprises of parallel NGO networks having widely different service packages, approaches and agendas. These parallel networks had evolved over time due to vertical policy agendas. Contracting of NGOs for provision of HIV services was faced with uneven capacities and turf rivalries across both NGO networks. At the same time contracting helped NGO providers belonging to different clusters to move towards standardized service delivery for HIV prevention. Market based measures such as contracting need to be accompanied with wider policy measures that facilitate in bringing NGOs groups to a shared understanding of health issues and responses.
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 | 0.070 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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.
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".