Policy coherence in development co-operation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1990s, a widely shared conviction emerged among aid donors that their policies should be more coherent than in the past. The drive towards increased policy coherence came as a response to a state of policy incoherence. The shifting grounds of policy coherence in development co-operation are outlined in this volume. The policies of some selected donorcountries - Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland - are scrutinized and analyzed, with particluar reference to the internal coherence of its development co-operation policy and the common foreign and security policy, and the coherence of EU policies and the bilateral policies of its member states. Some perspectives are highlighted in separate contributions: one analyzes coherene and incoherence of aid and trade policies; another the challenge of policy coherence in the new global order. Governance and coherence in development co-operation are also given particular focus as are coherent approaches to so-called complex emergencies, taking Belgium's policies towards the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa as the point of departure.
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 | 0.036 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".