Introduction: rising states, rising donors and the global aid regime
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes The origins of this special feature are in a research project on the 'B(R)ICS as Emerging Donors', that was commissioned by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Gregory Chin and Fahimul Quadir thank the IDRC, especially Rohinton Medhora, Daniele St-Pierre and David Schwartz, and former Vice President Stan Shapson and Associate Vice President David Dewitt for Research and Innovation at York University for funding the authors' workshop at York University, Toronto, Canada on 20–21 November 2009. Our thanks to Susan Henders, the former director, and Alicia Filipowich, the programs coordinator at the York Centre for Asian Research, for supporting this initiative. We thank Manmohan Agarwal, Simone Bohn, Andrew Cooper, Thomas Fues, Pablo Idahosa, Robert Latham, Ernesto Soria Morales, Viviana Patroni, Michele Ruiters and Andrew Schrumm for participating in the workshop as paper presenters or discussants, and Marianne Lau for her assistance at the workshop. Our special thanks to the editors of the Cambridge Review of International Affairs, particularly editor-in-chief Nivedita Manchanda, for her strong support and guidance throughout the project, to former editor Oliver Lewis, and the blind peer reviewers on each article. 1 An exception, for the case of China's impact on developing countries in Africa, is Brautigam (Citation2009). 2 In Monterrey, developing countries signed onto assuming responsibility for 'implementing sound economic policies, tackling corruption, putting in place good governance, investing in their people, and establishing an investment climate to attract private capital'. The UN also noted that the Monterrey Consensus highlighted that certain regions of the world require particular attention, namely the least developed countries in Africa, small island developing states and landlocked developing countries. 3 Notes from Gregory Chin's discussion with Thomas Bernes, the Chair of the Development Committee of the IMFC, during the negotiations for the Monterrey Consensus, Waterloo, Ontario, January 2011. 4 Gregory Chin's notes from discussions with officials of the Regional Office for Latin American and the Caribbean of the International Development Research Centre, Montevideo, May 2012. 5 Brazil, India and South Africa also initiated an 'IBSA' Dialogue Forum in 2004, and in 2006 created an IBSA Trust Fund, where each country has committed to contributing US$1 million per year, to provide project-level development assistance grants to countries of the South. For more information see < http://www.ibsa-trilateral.org/index.php?option = com_content&view = article&id = 29&>, accessed 2 October 2012. 6 At the G20 Toronto Summit, in June 2010, G20 Leaders agreed to establish the G20 Working Group on Development. 7 The Seoul Consensus consists of eight pillars: infrastructure, private investment and job creation, human resources development, trade, financial services, G20 platform for knowledge sharing, resilience and food security, and governance. 8 Lawrence MacDonald, 'Development and the G20 Summit', Center for Global Development, 25 October 2010, < http://blogs.cgdev.org/globaldevelopment/2010/10/development-and-the-seoul-g-20-summit.php>, accessed 3 October 2012. 9 Some analysts see less contestation between the G7 and the 'emerging donors', and view the Seoul Consensus, or the new 'G20 approach' to development, as incorporating core elements of the model that was traditionally advanced by bilateral Western donors in the DAC, but reformatted using the more recent experiences of the emerging economies. Other analysts see the beginnings of a paradigm shift. 11 Li 2007. 12 Li 2007, 3 (emphasis added). 10 We thank Thomas Fues for highlighting this point.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle