Bibliographic record
Abstract
While assessments of Ghana’s neoliberal experience are common, they do not always tell the entire story. This is because such assessments tend to focus on the dominant prescriptions of the Washington Consensus and the ideations and actions of dominant powers and institutions such as the United States, European Union, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank. The perspectives, actions, and motives of middle powers such as Canada in the making and managing of development efforts in Africa are hardly discussed. Yet these relatively quiet actors by virtue of their unique history (e.g., non-imperialist history) and engagement approach (e.g., targeted, ethical, and soft power approach) with specific countries or organizations can exert influence beyond what their international pedigree or resource commitment indicate. They can also mediate the effects of structural reforms by tackling other issues that are often overlooked in the often broad and controversially preconditioned reform agenda offered to African countries like Ghana. This chapter attempts to offer a new approach from Canada – a crucial North American polity in international development – along with an evaluation of the uniqueness of its development reform engagement in Ghana.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.006 |
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".