Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study examines the factors determining the allocation of Canada's bilateral aid from 1990 to 1998. The evidence does not support the contention that bilateral aid is driven by such factors as the alleviation of global poverty, the reduction of gender disparities, human resource development and debt relief. Rather, political and strategic considerations such as Commonwealth membership and proximity to Canada seem to be quite important. These conclusions, however, remain tentative given the limited data available. Also, no attempt is made to evaluate how much Canada's domestic economic considerations weigh in the allocation process. RÉSUMÉ Cet article examine les facteurs qui ont déterminé l'attribution de l'aide bilatérale canadienne entre 1990 et 1998. Les résultats contestent l'argument que l'aide bilatérale est dictée par des variables telles que la réduction de la pauvreté, la disparité entre les sexes, le développement des ressources humaines et l'allégement de la dette. Ce qui semble avoir plus d'importance, par contre, sont les facteurs politiques et stratégiques, comme l'appartenance au Commonwealth ou la proximité géographique au Canada. Cependant, ces conclusions demeurent provisoires puisque les données existantes sont très limitées. De plus, l'influence des facteurs économiques internes sur le processus d'attribution, n'est pas explorée.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".