MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417231645 · doi:10.1177/1468018115615643

Transnational actors and policymaking in Ghana: The case of the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty

2015· article· en· W2417231645 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Social Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentLivelihoodPovertyIncentivePolitical scienceSocial protectionEconomic growthDevelopment economicsEconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transnational actors (TNAs) are a part of the global social policy process. But questions of their roles and involvement in the process remain unanswered. Using a qualitative research to study Ghana’s adoption of the Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP), this article brings new evidence to light on how TNAs influence social policies in developing countries. Contrary to arguments that stress imposition as the main policy diffusion mechanism, it is shown here that TNAs combine multiple strategies including ideational, institutional, and material incentives to influence social policies in particular countries. As idea purveyors at the transnational level, TNAs are linked to the national policy process through their connections with policymakers and, more specifically, through policy discussions at regular sector working group meetings. From this perspective, ideas are shared and availability of support toward policy development is communicated.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.309 · 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