An imagined future for global health research, policy, and practice: contradictions and change - A study using the example of adolescent sexual and reproductive health in Eastern sub-Saharan Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ongoing global health inequities have been amplified since the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent social movements. Such inequities have resulted in increased literature critiquing the historical roots and current practices in global health. From this literature, questions have emerged about the future of global health and Canada’s role in this future. However, there is little research consolidating existing critiques and, based on these critiques, exploring adolescent sexual and reproductive health (ASRH) research and the role of Canadian funding for ASRH. The aim of this dissertation is to consolidate contemporary critiques of global health to develop a conceptual framework for one potential imagined future for global health. It then explores the conceptual framework for an imagined future through an example of global health research, policy, and practice, as it relates to ASRH in Eastern sub-Saharan Africa, to consider the opportunities and challenges of achieving this new potential vision. In this dissertation, I present four unique contributions. The first article presents the conceptual framework for an imagined future that will be used to explore ASRH research, policy, and practice. The second article presents findings from a scoping review on adolescent engagement in ASRH research. The third article presents a review of Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP) and examines the development of the policy in relation to an imagined future. The fourth article presents a qualitative description of stakeholder perspectives who are implementing ASRH projects with Canadian funding and discusses these perspectives in relation to an imagined future. Conclusions suggest that language to support changes towards an imagined future in global health exists although there is continued opportunity to operationalize the changes. Further research is encouraged to engage local actors and consider practical ways to shift towards equity and justice in Canadian funding for ASRH.
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 | 0.049 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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".