MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417668806 · doi:10.1017/s136510051500084x

A NOTE ON FOREIGN AID, HUMAN CAPITAL, AND WELFARE

2016· article· en· W2417668806 on OpenAlex
Hafedh Bouakez, Fabienne E. Gouba

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

VenueMacroeconomic Dynamics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTyingEconomicsWelfareContext (archaeology)Human capitalPublic capitalPublic spendingPerspective (graphical)Public economicsMicroeconomicsPublic welfarePublic investmentMarket economyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Should foreign aid be tied or untied? We study this question in the context of a dynamic growth model in which agents can accumulate human capital through education. We compare the growth and welfare implications of three polar scenarios in which foreign aid is either (i) completely untied, (ii) tied to public investment in infrastructure, or (iii) tied to public spending on education. Our results indicate that tying aid to education is more beneficial from a long-run welfare perspective than the two alternative scenarios. We also compute the optimal allocation of foreign aid and find that the largest fraction of aid flows ought to be tied to public spending on education. Finally, we study the transitional dynamics of the recipient economy following an aid inflow and find that aid programs that are tied (entirely or partially) to public spending on education generally entail some welfare losses in the short run.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · 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