Aid in the Midst of Plenty: Oil Wealth, Misery and Advocacy in Angola
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines advocacy initiatives by humanitarian and human rights organisations to address problems of governance in resource-rich and conflict-affected countries, focussing on the case of Angola. Humanitarian principles preclude the use of indiscriminate conditionality and point towards a cautious approach to advocacy aimed at assisting vulnerable populations. Furthermore, the relatively insignificant amount of aid supplied to resource-rich local authorities means that individual agencies have precious little leverage, especially when commercial interests rather than humanitarian or 'good governance' principles influence the priorities of bilateral donors. A context of resource wealth calls for: high levels of coordination and cooperation between human rights groups, aid agencies and donors; balanced use of conditionality, based on the drawing, by donors, of a clear distinction between emergency and development-oriented assistance; and a sustained effort to highlight the responsibilities of local authorities, foreign governments and businesses in meeting humanitarian and development objectives.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it