MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding and Enhancing the Role of Business in International Development: A Conceptual Framework and Agenda for Research

2014· article· en· W2043194862 on OpenAlexaff
John Humphrey, Stephen Spratt, Jodie Thorpe, Spencer Henson

Bibliographic record

VenueIDS Working Papers · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionSustainabilityBusinessWork (physics)ScarcityBusiness developmentPublic relationsProcess managementMarketingPolitical scienceEconomicsEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary It is now commonplace for development policy makers to refer to the contributions of businesses to the achievement of development goals and the importance of collaborations between businesses and development agencies. Many businesses give greater attention to the development impacts of their activities. There has been relatively little systematic and critical thinking about where and how businesses can contribute most effectively to the achievement of development objectives and, accordingly, how development agents should prioritise and focus their collaborations with businesses. This paper initiates such a systematic and critical approach, starting from the question ‘How can development policy work with and on businesses and the business environment so that the private goals of businesses contribute to most effectively to public development objectives?’ It identifies three basic categories of business and development initiatives: increasing the overall level of business activity, addressing sustainability challenges and promoting business activities that are particular benefit to the poor. The paper considers three major challenges for maximising the contributions businesses to the achievement of development goals. The first is increasing the alignments between business and objectives and development objectives, and the paper considers both the different ways this can be achieved and when such alignments are overly difficult to achieve. The second is to prioritise interventions. When resources are scarce, it is essential to pursue interventions that have the biggest development impact. This implies choosing interventions with goals and approaches that are most likely to be successful; in so doing, examining issues of feasibility, effectiveness and efficiency. So that scarce resources are focused on the areas of greatest benefit. The third is to achieve scaling up and systemic change. There are many examples of business activities that have positive development impacts but which are being pursued at small‐scale and/or in quite specific geographical or sectoral contexts. How can such initiatives be up‐scaled, translated and/or replicated in order to enhance impacts on the poor in ways that endure beyond the specific interventions applied?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0080.055
Scholarly communication0.0290.033
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIDS Working PapersSame topicInnovation and Socioeconomic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207