MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899806965 · doi:10.29173/psur34

Impact of Non-Government Organizations and Microcredit Institutions on the Development of Bangladesh

2017· article· en· W2899806965 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Murtoza Manzur

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Science Undergraduate Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofinanceBureaucracyEconomic growthPovertySocioeconomic developmentPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Opposition (politics)BusinessPolitical scienceDevelopment economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, I will argue that although local microfinance institutions and non-governmental organisations such as BRAC and Grameen Bank have played a significant part in the development and reduction of poverty in Bangladesh, some challenges remain. This paper will first present a brief background of the socioeconomic conditions of Bangladesh. The history of NGOs in the country and their transformation from primarily relief oriented agencies to being full-scale development actors will also be explored. I will analyse the relationship between the state and the non governmental agencies in delivering service to the people of Bangladesh. Furthermore, this paper will present the rise of microcredit institutions and facilities that have changed the economic landscape of Bangladesh. Finally, the essay will present the challenges that are faced by non governmental agencies in the country. This paper will bring forward the bureaucratic hurdles and the political opposition that are faced by such agencies. Public perception of NGOs will also be highlighted in this essay. I will also present the criticisms that some of the microcredit organisations such as Grameen Bank have faced due to their high emphasis on repayment of loans.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical Science Undergraduate ReviewSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207