How Do the Approaches to Accountability Compare for Charities Working in International Development?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approaches to accountability vary between charities working to reduce under-five mortality in underdeveloped countries, and healthcare workers and facilities in Canada.Comparison reveals key differences, similarities and trade-offs.For example, while health professionals are governed by legislation and healthcare facilities have a de facto obligation to be accredited, charities and other international organizations are not subject to mandatory international laws or guidelines or to de facto international standards.Charities have policy goals similar to those found in the Canadian substudies, including access, quality, cost control, cost-effectiveness and customer satisfaction.However, the relative absence of external policy tools means that these goals may not be realized.Accountability can be beneficial, but too much or the wrong kind of accountability can divert resources and diminish returns. RésuméLes mécanismes de l' obligation de rendre compte varient entre, d'un côté, les organismes de bienfaisance qui travaillent pour réduire la mortalité des enfants de moins de cinq ans dans les pays sous-développés et, de l' autre, les travailleurs et les établissements de services de santé au Canada.Une comparaison révèle d'importantes différences, similitudes et mécanismes de COMMENTARY How Do the Approaches to Accountability Differ for CharitiesWorking in International Development?How Do the Approaches to Accountability Differ for Charities Working in International Development?
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.116 | 0.218 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".