A gendered content analysis of the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 guidance and policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As with previous global public health emergencies, the COVID-19 pandemic has had distinct and disproportionate impacts on women and their health and livelihoods. As the leader in global public health, it is incumbent upon the World Health Organization (WHO) to ensure gender is prioritized in pandemic response. We conducted a policy analysis of 338 WHO COVID-19 documents and found that only 20% explicitly discuss gender and over half do not mention women, gender, or sex at all. Considering the well documented gendered effects of pandemics and the WHO's commitment to gender mainstreaming, this paper: 1) asks to what degree and how the WHO incorporates a gender inclusive approach; 2) maps where and how gender considerations are included; and 3) analyses what this suggests about WHO's commitment to gender mainstreaming within its COVID-19 response and beyond. We demonstrate that WHO should increase its gender mainstreaming efforts and incorporate gender considerations related to health emergencies more often and in more policy areas.
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 | 0.024 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".