Bilateral aid in Canada's foreign policy : the human rights rhetoric-practice gap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successive Canadian federal governments have officially indicated their support of human rights in foreign policy, including as they relate to aid-giving. This thesis quantitatively tests this rhetoric with the actual practice of bilateral aid-giving in two time periods – 1998-2000 and 2007-2009. This, however, revealed that Canada has actually tended to give more bilateral aid to countries with poorer human rights records. A deeper quantitative analysis identifies certain multilateral memberships – notably with the Commonwealth, NATO, and OECD – and the geo-political and domestic considerations of Haiti as significant and confirms a recipient state’s human rights performance is not a consideration. These multilateral relationships reflect state self-interests, historical connections, security, and a normative commitment to poverty reduction. It is these factors that those promoting a human rights agenda need to contemplate if recipient state performance is to become relevant in bilateral aid decisions. Thus, it is necessary to turn to international relations theory, in particular liberal institutionalism, to explain Canada’s bilateral aid-giving in these periods.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".