A bibliometric analysis of the realities of Australian international development aid efforts in the Pacific region
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a bibliometric analysis of scholarly discourse on Australia’s international development aid efforts in the Pacific. Using HistCite and VOSviewer to examine 150 Web of Science articles, our study demonstrates a multifaceted, cross-disciplinary field spanning policy-oriented and health-focused journals as well as several aid-relevant broader development issues in the literature. Findings reveal the dominance of Australian universities in producing knowledge about Australia’s aid in the Pacific. We argue that knowledge production in the Pacific remains colonised, shaped by power dynamics that exist within the Pacific region. The findings suggest that Pacific-based academics should take the driver’s seat in aid research to promote more balanced and locally informed discussions on Australia's aid. This paper offers the most comprehensive bibliometric analysis to date of Pacific scholarship on Australian aid. It also exposes the systemic contradictions between Australia’s dominant aid discourse, localising research and gathering perspectives from Pacific scholars.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.062 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it