‘South-South’ Borrowing: Lessons from the Caribbean and implications for post 2015 agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to draw attention to complexities of ‘education borrowing’ and outline considerations for setting education goals beyond 2015, the projected expiry date for Education for All goals. While policies from multilateral agencies advocate sharing best practices between developing nations to support improvements to quality education, qualitative research in Barbados and Trinidad & Tobago indicates that best practices are not shared nor implemented. At best, foreign ideas from industrialized countries are used to legitimize local policies. It appears that directives aimed at fostering ‘South-South’ cooperation do not account for cultural differences. Findings also suggest a lack of cross-national attraction as developing nations are more concerned about ‘international standards’. Policy development considerations for 2015 include a stronger emphasis on identifying locally driven approaches and goals in place of ‘South-South’ borrowing rhetoric. Abandonment of a common realm of values is not necessary; however the reduction of interventions by multilateral agencies may be a worthwhile goal for post 2015.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".