MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804831114 · doi:10.1186/s12992-018-0367-4

What did the Go4Health policy research project contribute to the policy discourse on the sustainable development goals? A reflexive review

2018· review· en· W2804831114 on OpenAlex
Vannarath Te, Nadia Floden, Sameera Hussain, Claire E. Brolan, Peter Hill

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobalization and Health · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoPublic Health OntarioCanadian Society for International Health
FundersFP7 HealthUniversity of TorontoUniversity of QueenslandNational Health and Medical Research CouncilEuropean CommissionMedical Research CouncilAustralian Government
KeywordsHealth policyGlobal healthRight to healthHealth services researchPolitical scienceSustainable developmentPublic relationsPublic healthCorporate governanceSocial determinants of healthThematic analysisAcknowledgementSocial policyInternational healthPublic administrationHuman rightsQualitative researchSociologyHealth careSocial scienceMedicineLawBusinessNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the European Commission funded Go4Health-Goals and Governance for Global Health, a consortium of 13 academic research and human rights institutions from both Global North and South-to track the evolution of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and provide ongoing policy advice. This paper reviews the research outputs published between 2012 and 2016, analyzing the thematic content of the publications, and the influence on global health and development discourse through citation metrics. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION: Analysis of the 54 published papers showed 6 dominant themes related to the SDGs: the formulation process for the SDG health goal; the right to health; Universal Health Coverage; voices of marginalized peoples; global health governance; and the integration of health across the other SDGs. The papers combined advocacy---particularly for the right to health and its potential embodiment in Universal Health Coverage-with qualitative research and analysis of policy and stakeholders. Go4Health's publications on the right to health, global health governance and the voices of marginalized peoples in relation to the SDGs represented a substantial proportion of papers published for these topics. Go4Health analysis of the right to health clarified its elements and their application to Universal Health Coverage, global health governance, financing the SDGs and access to medicines. Qualitative research identified correspondence between perceptions of marginalized peoples and right to health principles, and reluctance among multilateral organizations to explicitly represent the right to health in the goals, despite their acknowledgement of their importance. Citation metrics analysis confirmed an average of 5.5 citations per paper, with a field-weighted citation impact of 2.24 for the 43 peer reviewed publications. Citations in the academic literature and UN policy documents confirmed the impact of Go4Health on the global discourse around the SDGs, but within the Go4Health consortium there was also evidence of two epistemological frames of analysis-normative legal analysis and empirical research-that created productive synergies in unpacking the health SDG and the right to health. CONCLUSION: The analysis offers clear evidence for the contribution of funded programmatic research-such as the Go4Health project-to the global health discourse.

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 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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.279
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.305 · 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