Switching the poles in sexual and reproductive health research: implementing a research capacity-strengthening network in West and North Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health research capacities have been improved in Africa but still remain weak as compared to other regions of the World. To strengthen these research capacities, international collaboration and networking for knowledge and capacity transfer are needed. In this commentary, we present the Network for Scientific Support in the field of Sexual and Reproductive Health in West and North Africa, its priority research topics and discuss its implementation process. Established in January 2014, the Network aims at generating human rights and gender-based research fully carried out and driven by South based institutions. It is composed of 12 institutions including the Institute of Tropical Medicine of Antwerp (Belgium) and 11 institutions from eight Francophone West and North African countries. The key areas of interest of this network are health policies analysis and health system research in family planning, HIV prevention among vulnerable groups, quality of care and breast cancers. Since it started, seventeen research proposals based on locally relevant research questions have been developed. Among the seventeen proposals, eleven have been implemented. Several research institutions enhanced linkages with local representations of international partners such as UNFPA. The network is committed to strengthening methodological research capacities and soft skills such as fundraising, advocacy and leadership. Such competencies are strongly needed for developing an effective South-based leadership in Sexual and Reproductive Health research, and for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
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 | 0.245 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".