MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138226339

Banking on the Rural Poor?: Critical Insights and Policy Questions on Foreign Aid and Agrarian Reform in the Philippines

2012· article· en· W2138226339 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary Ann Manahan

Bibliographic record

VenueKasarinlan · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgrarian societyPovertyPoliticsAgrarian reformEconomic growthDevelopment aidDevelopment economicsFood securityContext (archaeology)Agrarian systemCivil societyRural povertyLand reformEconomicsPolitical scienceInternational developmentAgricultureGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foreign aid for agrarian reform funding—for example, Canadian aid—has claimed to address rural poverty, agricultural stagnation, and food security. This paper examines agrarian-related overseas development assistance (ODA) to the Philippines to reveal that such aid has had its ebb and flow—one that follows the internal policies and priorities of development agencies, and the development policies, strategies, and sociopolitical and economic context of its borrowing member countries. Such type of ODA is also contingent on other factors such as global socioeconomic and political environment; global trends in development financing; and pressures from powerful countries, domestic elites, social movements and civil society, or specific political conjuncture. As a result, short-time considerations override a long-term approach that would address rural poverty and land inequality.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKasarinlanSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207