The EU and its Member States in the World: Legal and Political Debates:Working Paper no. 185
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This contribution assesses the global health policies of the European Union (EU) and those of its individual Member States.So far, EU and public health scholars have paid little heed to this, despite the large budgets involved in this area.While the European Commission has recently attempted to define the 'EU role in Global Health', Member States are active in the domain of global health as well.Therefore, this paper raises the question to what extent a common EU vision on global health exists.This is investigated through a comparative framing analysis of the global health policy documents of the European Commission and seven EU Member states (France, Germany, the UK, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands).The analysis is informed by a typology of four 'global health frames', namely social justice, security, investment and charity.The findings show a mixed picture.It became clear that the conceptual shift from 'international health' towards 'global health' has not gained ground within the Member States.Consequently, there are also differences in how health is being framed.While the European Commission, France, Belgium, Denmark and Spain clearly support a social justice frame, the policy documents of the UK, Germany and the Netherlands put an additional focus on the security and/or investment frames.1 This manuscript builds on the working paper "International assistance from Europe for global health: searching for a common paradigm" (2012) of our colleagues Gorik Ooms, Rachel Hammonds and Wim Van Damme from the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp.We are grateful for their insight and advice, on which we could build our conceptualization and analysis.2 This manuscript was completed in January 2016.18 Carbone, M. (2007).The European Union and international development : the politics of foreign aid : UACES contemporary European studies series.New York: Routledge; Hoebink,
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.003 |
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".