MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7073571205

Science-based Health Innovation in Sub-Saharan Africa

2011· dissertation· en· W7073571205 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNew Partnership for Africa's DevelopmentDepartment for International DevelopmentStyrelsen för Internationellt UtvecklingssamarbeteUNICEFDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaWorld Health OrganizationMuhimbili University of Health and Allied SciencesKwame Nkrumah University of Science and TechnologyUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)Product innovationInnovation systemTacit knowledgeInnovation managementHealth careHealth policyNational innovation systemState (computer science)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Policy making bodies are increasingly highlighting the important role innovation can play in African development─not only to spur economic growth but also to deliver locally relevant, affordable products and services to African populations. The health sector is one area where innovation is most needed; however, we know very little about the capacity of African countries to innovate in this area. At the same time, a range of conceptual questions have arisen in the academic literature as to the very definition of innovation in an African context, and specifically, the applicability of the National Innovation System (NIS) to African countries. Through detailed case study research of science-based health firms in South Africa, of the NIS health system of Ghana, and by comparing these data with data collected in Uganda and Tanzania, I shed light on these questions from an empirical perspective. I find that science-based health innovation is a complex field, and whilst institutions can help or hinder its viability, the current state of health innovation in SSA can be attributed primarily to individual entrepreneurs with strong networks, who are taking risks in a largely non-enabling environment. I find that, more important for innovation, is the ability to access global knowledge–through appropriate policies and strong partnerships–and the capacity to apply it locally. For this, tacit knowledge, or “learning-by-doing,”’ to respond to consumer demand and achieve regional product penetration, is vital. My results show that the traditional focus on knowledge - or science-heavy innovation - will simply not capture the true extent of health innovation in SSA countries. Furthermore, science-based health innovation is clearly not one thing, and it is, for example, important to understand how plant medicine innovation fit in. The aims, intentions, and impacts of African health research on the countries themselves are rather vague, which constrains innovation at all levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→