Investigating Structures of Power-dynamics, Decision-making, and Resources in Global Health Partnerships - A case-study in Denmark of Rigshospitalet and its Global Health Partnerships.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigates how organizational structures shape Global Health Partnerships (GHP) between Rigshospitalet, a Danish public hospital, and partners in the Global South. Through semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis, it examines how power-dynamics, decision-making, and resource access are experienced and navigated by involved actors. Findings reveal that while GHPs are seen as collaborative and beneficial, experienced by actors as equal relations, they often rely heavily on informal structures, individual initiative, and personal relationships, while facing limited institutional support. Structural imbalances, particularly in funding, recognition, and coordination, persist despite intentions of well-balanced power-dynamics. The study highlights the need for more formalized frameworks and institutional backing to ensure more sustainable, balanced, and effective GHPs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".