Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current economic and political crisis has brought about a change in the environment in which non-governmental development organisations (NGDOs) have traditionally operated. This change can be summed up as a reduction in the funds they receive and an increase in the population they must serve. The need then arises to have mechanisms that allow an analysis of the good work performed by the NGDOs. Knowing the efficiency of the NGDOs in the management of their previous projects can contribute towards improving their future achievements. The aim of this research is to establish some objective indicators that allow an evaluation of the efficiency of these organisations. Firstly, a detailed analysis of the regulation of the three agencies is conducted (Spanish-AECID, European-EuropeAid, and American-USAID). This allows us to synthesise the indicators of good performance of the NGDO based on the study of the eligibility criteria of public donors. The research concludes with the study of the efficiency following the Promethee Approach. Our results reveal that 44.6% of the NGDOs (33 out of the 74 studied) operate inefficiently, compared to 29.7%, which are efficient.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".