An investigation into the factors causing international development project failure in developing countries: Focus on Afghanistan
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to identify and evaluate the perception of major stakeholders on factors causing International Development Project (IDP) failure in the context of Afghanistan. The study adopts a quantitative cross-sectional survey research design. Thirty significant IDP failure factors included in the questionnaire were identified and shortlisted through literature reviews and validated by experts and IDP management practitioners. The survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire to investigate the most significant IDP failure factors, and various statistical tools were employed to evaluate the perception of the survey respondents. RII was used to examine the relative importance index of each failure factor. The failure factors were then grouped into five categories: Financial constraints, Ineffective recruitment, External forces, Project leadership, and Project management practices using EFA. The findings of the study will help the international development community and their IDP implementing partners, INGs and project management practitioners manage IDPs proactively and mitigate the risks of project failure. It will also contribute to the IDP management body of knowledge. The research is the first of its kind to examine the possible factors causing IDP failure in Afghanistan.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it