Partnership as Process: Municipal Co-operation for International Development
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
ABSTRACT In recent years, development practitioners and academics have waxed eloquent about the advantages of partnering over more conventional donor-recipient forms of development assistance. As yet, however, the literature includes few “ground-level” analyses, which would allow for a better understanding of how such partnerships actually function and of the factors that ultimately contribute to their success or failure. This study offers a critical in-depth look at one type of innovative partnering strategy operating at the level of local government and known generically as international municipal co-operation (IMC). This case study seeks to identify key factors determining partnership success through an examination of the specific mechanisms of this form of interchange in two radically contrasting contexts. The study reveals that as is the case with other types of partnership relations, municipal partnering for development is a process that requires considerable preparation and cultivation in order to ensure that its potential as a unique mechanism for aid delivery is fully realized.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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