Meeting the challenges posed by per diem in development projects in southern countries: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study presents the results of a review whose goal is to generate knowledge on the possible levers of action concerning per diem practices in southern countries in order to propose reforms to the existing schemes. METHODOLOGY: A synthesis of available knowledge was performed using scoping review methodology: a literature search was conducted using several databases (Medline, Cinahl, Embase, PubMed, Google Scholar, ProQuest) and grey literature. A total of 26 documents were included in the review. Furthermore, interviews were conducted with the authors of the selected articles to determine whether the proposed recommendations had been implemented and to identify any outcomes. RESULTS: For the most part, the results of this review are recommendations supporting per diem reform. In terms of strategy, the recommendations call for a redefinition of per diems by limiting their appeal. Issued recommendations include reducing daily allowance rates, paying per diem only in exchange for actual work, increasing control mechanisms or harmonizing rates across organizations. In terms of operations, the recommendations call for the implementation of concrete actions to reduce instances of abuse, including not paying advances or introducing reasonable flat-rate per diem. That said, the authors contacted stated that few per diem reforms had been implemented as a result of the issued recommendations. CONCLUSION: The results of the study clearly identify possible levers of action. Such levers could make up the groundwork for further reflection on context and country-specific reforms that are carried out using a dynamic, participatory and consensual approach.
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 | 0.038 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".