Joint External Evaluation of the Health Sector in Tanzania:1999-2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a historic evaluation. It is (probably) the first ever sector evaluation which is fully in line with the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: The evaluation was led by Tanzania’s Ministry of Finance and looks into an entire sector and the role and contributions of all domestic and external stakeholders including government authorities at all levels, civil society organisations, and the private sector in Tanzania; and all development partners, bilateral and multilateral. The aim is not limited to improving the performance of individual donors, but to feed into Tanzania’s Third Health Sector Strategic Plan covering 2008-15 and to give recommendations on how all stakeholders can best contribute towards \nthe plan. The Evaluation was carried out from December 2006 to September 2007 by a consortium of COWI, Denmark; Goss Gilroy, Canada; and EPOS, Germany. Team Leader was Ted Freeman of GGI, Canada. Six development partners: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland were the major funders of the direct cost of the evaluation. The management of the evaluation was conducted by a management group comprising of Denmark, Germany and Tanzania. \n
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 | 0.053 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".