Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract “Aid dependency” has long been a concern among development organizations, because it supposedly discourages the entrepreneurial spirit and thus hinders economic development. But what happens when beneficiaries refuse aid? In this article, I offer an ethnographic account of aid refusal in postconflict northern Uganda. There, members of savings and loan associations negotiate debts and investments through Acholi ethics of ripe , or “making life experiences together.” In doing so, they demonstrate that their refusals are not disavowals of development. Rather, they are refusals of development hierarchies and of the financialization of development, both of which risk obstructing Acholi ethics of interdependence. By analyzing ripe and the ways that association members negotiate the ethics of receiving aid, this article offers a counterpoint to dominant, pathologizing discourses of African dependency, corruption, and development—discourses predicated on Western, neoliberal valuations of work and community. In short, this article calls into question the assumption that economic growth is always the sine qua non of development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".