MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097327351 · doi:10.1093/phe/phu033

Why Does Cuba 'Care' So Much? Understanding the Epistemology of Solidarity in Global Health Outreach

2014· article· en· W2097327351 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Ethics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachSolidarityPridePolitical scienceGlobal healthPublic relationsHealth careEconomic growthSociologyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cuba currently has more than 38,000 health workers providing emergency relief, long-term community-based care and medical education to some of the most vulnerable communities in the world. This current outreach to 76 countries positions Cuba as a leader in global health outreach. This has been well documented and praised by many scholars and policy makers alike. While many acknowledge the importance and impact of the Cuba’s global effort, there is very little understanding as to why Cuba makes such a large global health commitment in the first place. I argue that solidarity is in fact a mixture of national pride, self-interest and humanistic outreach. Ultimately, it is a calculated effort to overcome current structures of inequity and exploitation on a global scale by expanding new opportunities for health professionals dedicated to providing care in marginalized communities.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.272 · 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