‘走出去’还是留在国内—中国非政府组织在非洲的扩张 (‘Going Out’ or Staying in? The Expansion of Chinese NGOs in Africa)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The English version of this paper can be found at：http://ssrn.com/abstract=2761611Chinese Abstract:本文主要研究中国非政府组织在埃塞俄比亚和马拉维的海外运作情况。这两个非洲国家有着截然不同的政治制度。研究显示，不管什么样的政治制度，中国非政府组织都未能对其产生深刻的影响。本文作者认为，虽然中国政府力量强大，且大力支持国际化发展，东道国的国内政治和规章制度仍然起着重要的作用。本文研究显示，中国的国际化发展模式将一如既往支持一次性和短暂性的项目。至于民间团体的角色，官办非政府组织将会占主导地位，而非草根非政府组织。English Abstract:This article examines the overseas behaviour of Chinese non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) in two African nations, Ethiopia and Malawi, with varying political regime types. Our findings suggest that, irrespective of regime type, Chinese NGOs have yet to make a substantial impact in either nation. We argue that, despite the strength of the Chinese state and high levels of international development assistance given, domestic politics and regulatory frameworks in host nations still matter a great deal. Our study suggests that the Chinese model of international development will continue to be one in which temporary one‐off projects are favoured; and, insofar as social organisations will play a role, they will be in the domain of government‐organised NGOs rather than grassroots NGOs.Note: Downloadable document is in Chinese.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".