EU 2009 report on policy coherence for development. Commission staff working document accompanying the report of the Commission to the Council. SEC (2009) 1137 final, 17 September 2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UK, Making it Happen: April 2008 an internal management and delivery initiativeIn April 2008, an internal management and delivery initiative (Making it Happen) helped to broaden the agenda of UK development policies to include areas that were previously outside of the development sector.The move towards increasing PCD capacity began in July 2007 with the doubling in size of the ministerial team for international development. 13 One of the major components of the government's PCD effort is the establishment of a joint DFID -Department of Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform Trade Policy Unit (TPU) in November 2007. 2 This new unit places the responsibility for overseeing trade policy jointly on the two ministries, and a new Cabinet Committee was created to increase coherence.Furthermore, a Justice Assistance Network was created in May 2007, as a joint effort by DFID, the Attorney General, and the FCO, to ensure that UK justice assistance is coherent and effective. 1Also, in 2007, Her Majesty's Treasury (HMT) and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs started taking steps to ensure that taxation treaties are in line with the UK's development objectives. 1 DFID, the FCO, and HMT have also worked jointly to develop the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. 2 The increased coordination between ministries dealing with trade, migration, and financial matters is necessary to make the UK's development cooperation and policy coherence more effective.About 75% of Member States have improved their institutional decision-making processes to ensure PCD.A large majority of the Member States now have well-established interministerial or interdepartmental committees, units or task forces specifically mandated to 13 DFID.DFID Annual Report 2008: Making It Happen.: http://www.dfid.gov.uk
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".