Report of the Eighteenth Meeting of the CGIAR Finance Committee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Report of the eighteenth meeting of the CGIAR Finance Committee, held in Washington on October 21 and 26, 2000 in conjunction with ICW 2000, Iain MacGillivray of Canada presiding. Funding from CGIAR donors in 2000, given the diminishing dollar value of several European currencies, was likely to be $330-$335 million. There were continued problems with timeliness of disbursements. ISNAR and ILRI were below approved financing plans. The same funding of $340 million was projected for 2001, and as the basis for the 2002. The Committee allocated World Bank funds for 2001.The Committee endorsed the business plan for a new inter-center public awareness and resource mobilization organization based on Future Harvest, and considered that this finished its work on a long term financing framework. The Committee endorsed a proposal to move toward a uniform approach by centers and donors for determining indirect costs. It heard a report on measures to improve management of center cash resources and investments. The World Bank would resume the committee chairmanship.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.021 |
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".