Priorities for global access to life-saving interventions during public health emergencies: Crisis nationalism, solidarity or charity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to COVID-19-vaccines by the global poor has unveiled the impact of global health and scientific inequities on access to life saving interventions during public health emergencies (PHE). Despite calls for global solidarity to ensure equitable global access to COVID-19 vaccines, wealthy countries both in the north and southern hemisphere may find a charity-based approach more appealing and are using the opportunity to forge neo-colonial cooperation ties with some African countries. Solidarity is undoubtedly an ideal equity-based principle of public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC). However, its application may be wanting especially as crisis nationalism is more likely to inform the public health policy of any country during a PHEIC, even when they are strong advocates of global solidarity. African countries, on the other hand, must re-appraise their heavy reliance on international aids during PHE and recognise the importance of boosting their epidemic preparedness including research and translation of its findings to practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".