MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948833061 · doi:10.17645/pag.v7i2.1852

Aid Targeting to Fragile and Conflict-Affected States and Implications for Aid Effectiveness

2019· article· en· W2948833061 on OpenAlexafffund
Yiagadeesen Samy, David Carment

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitics and Governance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFragilityAid effectivenessTypologyCreditorDevelopment aidPolitical scienceMember statesDevelopment economicsEconomicsBusinessInternational economicsDeveloping countryEconomic growthGeographyMacroeconomicsEuropean union

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While significant amounts of foreign aid have been allocated to the group of so-called fragile and conflict-affected states in recent years, it is not clear whether that aid is targeted to where it is most needed. This article extends recent work by Carment and Samy (2017, in press), and focuses on aid targeting in fragile states by using the Country Indicators for Foreign Policy fragility index together with sectoral aid flows from the OECD Creditor Reporting System. Specifically, it considers six country-cases from a three-fold typology of states and evaluates the performance of these countries in terms of their fragility relative to the types of aid that they have received. The article argues that aid is poorly targeted in fragile states and by considering the sectoral allocation of aid it also contributes indirectly to the related issue of aid effectiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitics and GovernanceSame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207