MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066307511 · doi:10.1080/02255189.2001.9668822

L'endettement des pays les plus pauvres: le cas du Mali

2001· article· fr· W2066307511 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Massa Coulibaly, Amadou Diarra, Sikoro Keita

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développement · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebtPovertyPoverty reductionExternal debtInterimPopulationDevelopment economicsCapital (architecture)BusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceFinancial systemWelfare economicsGeographyEconomic growthFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On September 6, 2000, Mali received US$870 million in foreign debt reduction under the HIPC Initiative. This amount is equivalent to just over one third of the country's foreign debt in current terms. This decision was a breakthrough for Mali, where at least two thirds of the population lives below the poverty line. However, some major challenges will have to be overcome before the Enhanced HIPC Initiative completion point is reached, particularly since the Bretton Woods institutions approved Mali's application with serious reservations partly as a result of Mali's weak Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. In addition, largely because the reduction is spread out over a lengthy 30-year period, the HIPC Initiative alone seems insufficient to permanently eliminate Mali's debt crisis. A combination of measures in addition to the HIPC Inititiave would be the most effective, including halting capital flight, fighting tax fraud, issuing domestic public securities, and all the other traditional methods of financing debt.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d études du développementSame topicGlobal Financial Crisis and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207