Policy Ideas and North–South Research Cooperation: The Case of Norway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geopolitically powerful actors in countries linked to the global North have historically shaped the landscape of North–South research cooperation. The literature documents not only the pervasiveness of asymmetrical relationships in North–South research cooperation but also a growing recognition among policy and academic actors of these dynamics. In this context, this study traces the invention of the Norwegian “South-South-North” partnership model, which was envisaged as an alternative to mainstream approaches and sought to foreground the needs and priorities of researchers in the global South. Employing the conceptual perspective of policy ideas, this study identifies three ideas that were constitutive of the model: humanitarianism, enlightened self-interested, and international reputation building. Functioning as broad public philosophies, these ideas underpinned the adoption of the South–South–North model as a distinctively Norwegian approach to research capacity building in the global South.
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 | 0.070 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".