The rules for intersectoral policy processes in the Norwegian national policy on global health arena
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Four European countries have adopted national policies on global health (NPGH), reflecting efforts by national governments to integrate global health, development and foreign policy agendas. Contributions of these sectors in a NPGH arena vary according to their roles in intersectoral policy situations. Rules structure how sectors interact in situations. This presentation aims to show how rules regulate the exercise of power by sectors in intersectoral policy situations in Norway’s NPGH arena producing the White paper on Global health in foreign and development policy. Methods In 2014-2015 we conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 Norwegian key informants to ask about Norway’s NPGH policy processes (2006-2012). For each of 6 intersectoral situations composing Norway’s NPGH arena, we coded the actors, processes, resources, and results in verbatim transcripts using MAXQDA software. We analysed rules related to power within each situation, and those characteristic of the arena overall. Results Different types of rules reinforce foreign policy sector’s ownership of Norway’s NPGH arena. Position rules confer dispositional power mainly to the foreign policy sector having the leading role in the arena, except in matters with concern governance of WHO affairs. Boundary rules regulate participants' access to policy situations (small groups of senior civil servants and experts from health, development, foreign policy sectors) and restrict scope of ideas considered (favouring aid approaches). Boundary rules permit civil society actors, with limited relational power, to be consulted, but interaction rules exclude them from decision-making processes. Interaction rules prioritise politics and political ideas over technical ideas in decisions. Conclusions Rules for intersectoral policy processes produce a power asymmetry between the sectors of foreign affairs (fiscal responsibility for global health) and health (advancing knowledge for global health) in Norway’s NPGH arena. Key messages: Position rules in Norway’s NPGH arena attribute the leading role to the foreign affairs sector and a supporting one to health sector. Boundary rules in Norway’s NPGH arena mark divisions between sectoral territories of global health, dichotomizing rather than integrating their respective ideas and instruments.
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 | 0.058 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".