Religion and secularism in development: trends in the approaches of bilateral donors in Canada and the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines the ways in which the Canadian and British bilateral donors—the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA, now Global Affairs Canada) and the Department for International Development (DFID)—have approached the intersections of religion and development. While DFID has been increasingly attentive to the topic, no significant government initiatives on religion in development have been launched by its Canadian counterpart since the early 1990s. Despite their seemingly divergent approaches to religion, the aid cultures of both donors are shaped by Western assumptions about “religion” and “the secular” that are not always shared by program communities. These assumptions, which are evident in both funding patterns and discourse, have the potential to marginalize local perspectives. Government donors exude significant influence on contemporary development practice and thus have the potential to play an important role in efforts to reform the dominant aid culture; however, given the intersecting inequalities manifest on both a global and local level, such efforts are convoluted and contentious.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".