The impact of INGO ties on flows of aid for women’s health in the developing world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent literature on international development aid has emphasized the role of international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) in determining who receives international development assistance. However, few analyses have investigated the specific sectors of international aid and the influence of INGOs by INGO type. Using panel data from 94 countries from 1996 to 2015, this study tests the effects of general INGOs, women’s international non-governmental organizations (WINGOs), and health international non-governmental organizations (HINGOs) on the flows of aid for women’s reproductive health, family planning, and sexually transmitted diseases (STD) control/HIV/AIDS. The results show that general INGOs, WINGOs, and HINGOs are an important source of women’s health aid. However, the effects of these organizations are conditioned by recipients’ levels of political and economic development. These findings provide supporting evidence for the idea that INGO ties are important in women’s health aid, but also suggest that the size and significance of INGO effects should be considered cautiously.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".