Evaluation of a knowledge transfer strategy from a user fee exemption program for vulnerable populations in Burkina Faso
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of this special issue contributing to the development of knowledge on vulnerability and health in Africa, this article analyzes one example of a knowledge transfer strategy aimed at improving the use of research results that could help reduce the vulnerability of certain populations. In this case, since September 2008, the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe e.V. (HELP) has conducted a trial of subsidizing 100% of the costs of health care for vulnerable populations in two health districts of Burkina Faso. A scientific partnership was created to produce evidence on the intervention, and a knowledge transfer strategy was developed to promote the use of that evidence by stakeholders (decision-makers, people working in the health system, funding partners, etc.). The results showed that considerable efforts were invested in knowledge transfer activities and that these led to all types of use (instrumental, conceptual, persuasive). However, considerable variation in use was observed from one setting to another. This article presents some lessons to be drawn from this experience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it