MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152826335 · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-1-1

Assessing capacity for health policy and systems research in low and middle income countries*

2003· article· en· W2152826335 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Research Policy and Systems · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlliance for Health Policy and Systems ResearchInternational Development Research CentreStyrelsen för Internationellt UtvecklingssamarbeteWorld Bank Group
KeywordsHealth services researchHealth policyStakeholderCritical mass (sociodynamics)IncentiveBusinessCapacity buildingPortfolioHealth administrationSocial policyDeveloping countryStakeholder engagementEconomic growthPolitical scienceHealth careEconomicsFinancePublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As demand grows for health policies based on evidence, questions exist as to the capacity of developing countries to produce the health policy and systems research (HPSR) required to meet this challenge. METHODS: A postal/web survey of 176 HPSR producer institutions in developing countries assessed institutional structure, capacity, critical mass, knowledge production processes and stakeholder engagement. Data were projected to an estimated population of 649 institutions. RESULTS: HPSR producers are mostly small public institutions/units with an average of 3 projects, 8 researchers and a project portfolio worth $155,226. Experience, attainment of critical mass and stakeholder engagement are low, with only 19% of researchers at PhD level, although researchers in key disciplines are well represented and better qualified. Research capacity and funding are similar across income regions, although inequalities are apparent. Only 7% of projects are funded at $100,000 or more, but they account for 54% of total funding. International sources and national governments account for 69% and 26% of direct project funding, respectively. A large proportion of international funds available for HPSR in support of developing countries are either not spent or spent through developed country institutions. CONCLUSIONS: HPSR producers need to increase their capacity and critical mass to engage effectively in policy development and to absorb a larger volume of resources. The relationship between funding and critical mass needs further research to identify the best funding support, incentives and capacity strengthening approaches. Support should be provided to network institutions, concentrate resources and to attract funding.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Incentives · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.205
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.846
GPT teacher head0.627
Teacher spread0.220 · 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