Do Human Rights Matter in Bilateral Aid Allocation? A Quantitative Analysis of 21 Donor Countries<sup>*</sup>
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To analyze the role of human rights in aid allocation of 21 donor countries. Methods. Econometric analysis is applied to a panel covering the period 1985 to 1997. Results. Respect for civil/political rights plays a statistically significant role for most donors at the aid eligibility stage. Personal integrity rights, on the other hand, have a positive impact on aid eligibility for few donors only. At the level stage, most donors fail to promote respect for human rights in a consistent manner and often give more aid to countries with a poor record on either civil/political or personal integrity rights. No systematic difference is apparent between the like‐minded countries commonly regarded as committed to human rights (Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden) and the other donors. Conclusions. Contrary to their verbal commitment, donor countries do not consistently reward respect for human rights in their foreign aid allocation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it