The World Health Organization as an engine of ideational robustness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The paper focuses on the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in promoting a healthy world population as a generative and robust idea within health policy. The WHO’s health credo transcends national boundaries to promote health globally. It is embedded in norms, values, and standards promulgated by the organization and contributes in shaping the health responses of national governments. Ideational robustness refers to the ability of the WHO to adapt its health credo to changing contexts and circumstances, thus promoting the legitimacy of an international health order. Disturbances, including the Covid-19 pandemic, test the credo’s robustness, forcing the WHO to constantly work at reframing ideas to adapt to political forces and competing logics that structure the field of international health. Empirically, the paper is based on an historical analysis of the evolution of the health credo of the WHO since its inception. Qualitative content analysis of secondary sources, such as policy documents, explores how ideational work performed by WHO leaders impacts on the organization’s position and legitimacy. Ideational robustness appears to be largely influenced by leadership vision, preexisting organizational structure, and the political economy of international health. Ideational robustness appears as a powerful yet insufficient ingredient of policy success.
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 | 0.026 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".