MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545725311 · doi:10.1080/02255189.2007.9669204

Canada's Approach to Good Governance in Bangladesh: Exploring the Dynamics of Social Change

2007· article· fr· W1545725311 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Fahimul Quadir

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développement · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptimal distinctiveness theoryCorporate governancePromotion (chess)Civil societyDemocracyMeaning (existential)Political scienceDemocratic governanceGood governancePublic administrationPolitical economyEconomic systemSociologyEconomicsManagementPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exploration of the meaning and significance of Canada's governance framework. The distinctiveness of Canada's governance approach is identified by taking a closer look at Canada's governance activities in Bangladesh. Canada's governance framework, although it draws on the dominant liberal philosophical tradition that focuses on the promotion of both procedural democracy and the free market, recognizes the synergy among democracy promotion, market reform, and social development. Despite its innovation, Canada's governance framework does not ground the challenge of governance and human development in a comprehensive, more distinct theoretical base, leading to analytical and policy problems concerning its approach to state-civil society relations in particular.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0120.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développementSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207