Charitable work in a developing region: why humanitarian work is mostly in the hands of foreign organizations in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humanitarian work in Africa is mostly in the hands of foreign humanitarian actors. This paper looks at a number of factors contributing towards this situation and possible ways that Africa as a developing continent can use to avert this situation. Most humanitarian organizations are linked to the West, particularly the United Kingdom, USA, Canada, Denmark, Germany and Norway. Humanitarian organizations are organizations that offer humanitarian aid in humanitarian crises and they can be intergovernmental organizations or international private and voluntary organizations. In most humanitarian situations in Africa, Western humanitarian bodies are more active. The United Nations, as an inter-governmental body, is also responsive to Africa’s humanitarian crises with its subsidiary bodies like UNICEF, UNDP, WHO and FAO. The existence of foreign humanitarian organizations in Africa’s humanitarian industry indicates the existence of various gaps and weaknesses in the social, economic and political fabrics of Africa. Therefore, this paper discusses the main reasons why the African humanitarian industry is in foreign hands and provides recommendations on the way forward for the developing continent. Keywords: humanitarian work, foreign organizations, underdevelopment, dependency
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".