MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580015894 · doi:10.1111/ijsw.12257

Transnational actors and health care reform: Why international organizations initially opposed, and later supported, social health insurance in Ghana

2017· article· en· W2580015894 on OpenAlexafffund
Ishmael Wireko, Daniel Béland

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Welfare · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Polytechnic
FundersCanada Research ChairsWorld Bank Group
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Government (linguistics)Health carePolitical scienceHealth policyPublic relationsPublic administrationEconomic growthSociologyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much has been written about the impact of transnational actors on health and social policy. In this article, we show how some international organizations’ efforts to prevent Ghana from enacting a social health insurance program in 2003 failed. We then explain why the Ghanaian government ignored these organizations’ advice and even excluded them from the policy formulation process altogether. Finally, we explore these organizations’ logic as they came to accept and even promote the new Ghanaian policy internationally. As argued, a temporal perspective on the impact of transnational actors and the way their prescriptions change over time is necessary if one is to capture transnational policy influence and its limitations. A temporal perspective is also important in explaining the logic of accommodation on the part of these actors, since this only becomes apparent over time. This is precisely why our qualitative analysis traces both domestic policy development and the changing nature of transnational ideas and prescriptions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.019
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Social WelfareSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207