The FIFA World Cup as a Tool for Global Health Diplomacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International football competitions like the Continental Championships, Leagues, and World Cup serve as the focal point of large-scale tournaments with an international scope. With specialized local representatives serving as diplomatic envoys, they can represent interests, beliefs, and history across boundaries. The advancement of world health can also be reflected in this representation. Football can play a crucial role in accomplishing various health goals by raising audience knowledge and encouraging behavioral and lifestyle changes. The World Cup may provide a platform for increased interest in the potential for global health diplomacy. A systems approach is needed to contextualize international soccer within the reality of global health. The World Cup for Health's diplomacy should negotiate with stakeholders and oversee their interactions to provide initiatives and activities that support the globally shared and aligned viewpoint on health outcomes. This article seeks to provide a long-lasting framework for effectively using the Fédération Internationale de Football Association World Cup, an enormously popular sporting event, as a diplomatic instrument for promoting global health.
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 | 0.030 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".