Beliefs, Values, and Practices in Development Studies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article uses a survey of Development Studies (DS) professors and students in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom to answer three questions about academic DS. DS is defined in part by a commitment to improve the world, and the first questions ask if the respondents believe that DS lives up to this defining criteria. The second group of questions asks about the ethical commitments of DS academics and how these commitments inform our research and teaching. Finally, I explore cross-national variation in how we practice DS. I ask about the methods, training, and disciplinary norms of DS academics across the three countries. In asking about beliefs, values, and practices and in exploring cross-national variation in our answers, I seek to both build self-knowledge about DS academics as a cross-national epistemic community and also to encourage self-reflection about how we can harmonise our empirical beliefs, ethical commitments, and professional practices.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 it