MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Aid Effectiveness in Africa*

2008· article· en· W1999925566 on OpenAlex

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

VenueAfrican Development Review · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaVancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAid effectivenessEconomicsDebtDevelopment aidContext (archaeology)Investment (military)Development economicsMillennium Development GoalsGeneral partnershipDeveloping countryEconomic growthFinancePolitical scienceGeographyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract : This paper revisits the issue of aid effectiveness in Africa by examining the effect of aid on growth. Historically, Africa's development context appears to be an aid‐dependent one, and with the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) calling for additional capital flows to improve growth levels on the continent, and the attainment of the UN's Millennium Development Goals partly conditioned on aid inflows, there is a new urgency to evaluate the effectiveness of aid. Using a sample comprising 40 member countries of the African Union, and estimating fixed‐effects growth models, we find a positive and statistically significant effect of aid on growth. Aid increases investment, which is a major transmission mechanism in the aid‐growth relationship. An extension of our analysis to examine sources of growth finance shows aid, workers' remittances, debt‐service resources and domestic savings are important sources of development finance. Thus, for now, aid matters for the continent's growth. However, given the apparent donor aid fatigue and the debt servicing implications of concessional loans, the paper supports the need to strategize to reduce future dependence on aid.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.259 · 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