MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133121707 · doi:10.1111/dpr.12550

Understanding public support for Canadian aid to developing countries: The role of information

2021· article· en· W3133121707 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment Policy Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)Socioeconomic statusGovernment spendingProsperityPoliticsPublic supportPolitical scienceDevelopment aidVotingPublic economicsEconomicsEconomic growthPublic relationsWelfareSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Motivation The public needs to be better informed on the reasons for providing aid, especially that which supports the Sustainable Development Goals. How aid is framed by donors directly affects levels of public support. Purpose The article investigates support for aid among English‐speaking Canadians, and how this varies by the framing of aid spending, socioeconomic markers, personal values and political engagement. Approach and methods Statistical analysis is undertaken of data from a representative survey of English‐speaking Canadians on their knowledge and attitudes with respect to aid to developing countries. A particular focus of the analysis is the influence of the framing of aid spending on public support for aid spending, while controlling for the influence of socioeconomic factors. Findings Support for increased spending rises when spending is framed relative to the size of the economy, whether in dollar or percentage terms, rather than when framed relative to government taxation or spending. Providing information on the current level of aid spending also raises support for increased aid spending. Overall, when informed about the level of aid spending, most respondents support maintaining or increasing aid. Views on aid vary little by age, education and other socioeconomic markers. People’s values, however, did affect support for aid. Respondents who believe in “Canada first” were considerably more likely to support aid cuts than others. Those who see kindness as part of Canadian identity tend to favour aid, while those who see economic prosperity as part of national identity tend to want aid cuts. While voting intention does not affect views on aid, respondents who have been either politically active or involved in collective action on media/social media are a little more likely to favour increased aid. Policy implications The findings confirm the importance of the framing of aid spending for designing and implementing programmes to inform, engage and elicit support from the public. Given how values influence public support for aid, engagement needs to be tailored to different target audiences.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.239 · 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