‘Creating the world's best development agency’? Confusion and Contradictions in CIDA's New Policy Blueprint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of Canada's International Policy Statement as a blueprint for radically improving the work of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The overarching objective and motivation of the Statement's chapter on development—improving aid delivery, not only to combat poverty abroad, but also to serve Canadian interests, including the provision for Canada of a more prominent role in international affairs—is examined. The principal means of achieving this goal are analyzed: influencing policy priorities in developing countries, improving aid effectiveness through greater selectivity in the choice of recipients, disbursing more aid to fewer countries and in fewer sectors, and attaining greater coherence with other Canadian government policies. The Statement's confusion and contradictions, it is argued, coupled with the relatively modest increase in resources it foresees, make it unlikely to have a transformative effect, let alone a significant positive impact on either Canada's development aid program or CIDA's international standing.
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 | 0.053 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.051 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".