MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1751358136 · doi:10.18235/0011180

The Impact of National Research Funds: An Evaluation of the Chilean FONDECYT

2007· preprint· en· W1751358136 on OpenAlex
José Miguel Benavente, Gustavo Crespi, Alessandro Maffioli

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInnovation Policy and R&D
Canadian institutionsInternational Development Research Centre
FundersInter-American Development Bank
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is part of the project: "IDB's Science and Technology Programs: An Evaluation of the Technology Development Funds (TDF) and Competitive Research Grants (CRG)." This paper analyzes the role of National Research Funds in promoting scientific production in emerging economies. The investigation focuses on the impact of the Chilean National Science and Technology Research Fund (FONDECYT). To measure the program's impact, we implement a Regression Discontinuity (RD) design on projects submitted for funding between 1988 and 1995. The results do not show any significant impact either in terms of publications or in terms of quality of publications in the proximity of the program threshold ranking. Although results show that the program has been partially effective in identifying the best projects in terms of expected quality, evidence suggests that the FONDECYT's lack of impact may be due to targeting problems in terms of both researchers and research projects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.497
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.003 · 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

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovation Policy and R&DFrench-language works237,207