MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253828902 · doi:10.1787/9789264303560-12-en

Canada's humanitarian assistance

2018· book-chapter· en· W4253828902 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOECD development co-operation peer reviews · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitarian aidPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada remains a major donor that helps to shape the humanitarian policy landscape. Humanitarian aid is at the top of Canada’s ODA spending, representing 22.3% of its total ODA bilateral commitments on average in 2015-16, well above the DAC average. Based on solid whole-of-government co-ordination, already praised in the last peer review, Canada has further strengthened its integrated response to major crises, such as in the Middle East; its humanitarian budget has kept increasing in recent years; and the Peace and Stabilisation Operations Programme is a good tool to help address the factors that create violence and humanitarian needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.007

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOECD development co-operation peer reviewsSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207