MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201608154 · doi:10.1177/00219096211039539

India’s Health Diplomacy as a Soft Power Tool towards Africa: Humanitarian and Geopolitical Analysis

2021· article· en· W3201608154 on OpenAlexaff
Rajani Mol, Bawa Singh, Vijay Kumar Chattu, Jaspal Kaur, Balinder Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Asian and African Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoft powerDiplomacyGeopoliticsForeign policyHumanitarian crisisPolitical scienceInternational relationsLeverage (statistics)Hard powerGlobal healthEconomic growthHealth careDevelopment economicsChinaPoliticsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

India and Africa have been sharing a multidimensional relationship of cooperation and friendship since the ancient civilizations. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought new possibilities and opportunities for India to leverage its soft power diplomacy towards Africa. The paper’s main focus is to analyze how India has made soft power part of its foreign policy and examine India’s relationship with the African continent through health diplomacy. A literature search was done in major databases, such as Web of Science, Medicine/PubMed, Scopus, OVID, and Google Scholar search engine to gather relevant information. Through humanitarian assistance and geopolitical influence, India had won the support and heart of Africans. Besides, India has become a global healthcare provider in the African continent through its global health diplomacy and vaccine diplomacy. India has achieved impressive gains through its soft power diplomacy and has become a compassionate and benevolent actor in the African continent.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations42
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Asian and African StudiesSame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207