Overview of Canadian bilateral foreign aid (1971-2016) and its failure to support the sustainable rural development of Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this paper is to provide an overview of Canadian bilateral foreign aid (1971-2016) to Bangladesh and evidence that Canadian aid has failed to support the sustainable rural development in Bangladesh followed by a plausible explanation of its failure. Despite ongoing Canadian bilateral assistance in Bangladesh, little is known about the accomplishment and failures of Canadian aid in support of rural development. The overview of Canadian bilateral foreign aid describes aid support (food, commodity and project) at national level. This research also compares Canadian bilateral foreign aid with other major donors. This research paper provides three arguments which demonstrate that Canadian aid has failed to support sustainable rural development in Bangladesh. First, Canada's programming framework for Bangladesh is dependent on policy papers at national level such as Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP), Annual Development Plan (ADP) and National Rural Development Policy (NRDP) but these policy papers expresses very little concern about rural development. Second, project aid analysis (2001-2016) shows that Canadian bilateral aid has not been targeted at rural development of Bangladesh. Third, Canadian aid has supported the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) to support the basic education sector but this study suggest that BRAC has not successfully addressed rural primary education in Bangladesh. The paper concludes by suggesting that increased Canadian policy coherence can help to mitigate the failures of Canadian bilateral assistance and support sustainable rural development in Bangladesh.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".