Coloniality, Elite Networks and Intersectionality: Key Concepts in Understanding Biomedical Power and Equity in Health Policy Processes Comment on "Power Dynamics Among Health Professionals in Nigeria: A Case Study of the Global Fund Policy Process"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand the role of power in health policy processes in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) contexts, it is necessary to engage with global and local power structures and their historical contexts. In this commentary, we outline three dimensions that shape a dominant power in health policy processes-the biomedical power. We propose that understanding the linkages between medical power and colonialism; the close connection of public health, medicine and elite networks; and the intersectionalities that shape the powers of medical professionals can offer the means to examine the biomedical hegemony in health policy processes. Additionally we suggest that a more nuanced understanding of the interaction of local powers with global funding can offer some entry points to achieving more equitable and interdisciplinary health policy processes in LMICs.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.043 | 0.037 |
| 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".