MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determinants of Canadian bilateral aid allocations: humanitarian, commercial or political?

2004· article· en· W2008856361 on OpenAlex
Ryan J. MacDonald, John Hoddinott

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonwealthPoliticsAffect (linguistics)EconomicsHumanitarian aidAltruism (biology)Public economicsMicroeconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologyLawPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In this paper we examine the determinants of the allocation of Canadian bilateral aid over the period 1984–2000. We draw on models of donor behaviour that allow us to incorporate humanitarian, commercial and political considerations – the ‘trinity of mixed motives’– that affect Canadian aid. We find that allocations are moderately altruistic. Recipient country human rights and membership in the Commonwealth and La Francophonie also affect aid flows. Most strikingly, our results suggest that Canadian aid flows became less altruistic over this period and commercial motives became increasingly important. JEL Classification: H50, O10

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.059 · 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