MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development Goals, commercial interest and EU Aid-for-Trade

2023· article· en· W4386999765 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Development · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
FundersHorizon 2020HORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsMember statesEuropean unionNational interestInternational tradeAid effectivenessDevelopment aidPolitical scienceBusinessNational developmentInternational economicsEconomicsEconomic growthDeveloping countryLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extent to which official development assistance (ODA) conforms to internationally agreed goals and principles of aid effectiveness may be influenced by donors’ national interests. Disentangling the extent to which national ODA is motivated by development goals vs. commercial self-interest is difficult. European Union (EU) member states provide external aid through EU-level institutions and independently through national aid programs. Theory suggests pooled EU-level aid facilitates satisfying development effectiveness principles while bilateral ODA is more likely to reflect national interests. We investigate this hypothesis for a subset of ODA, aid for trade (AfT), provided by donors to recipient countries between 2002 and 2018. We find a strong, statistically significant positive relationship between AfT provided by EU donors and their exports to recipient countries. In contrast, AfT provided by EU institutions and non-European states enhances merchandise imports from recipient countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.255 · 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