Bibliographic record
Abstract
An analysis of BRICS summit performance since its start on the margins of the G8’s Hokkaido Summit in 2008 through to its gathering at the G20’s Brisbane Summit in November 2014, shows it emerging as a solid, increasingly comprehensive, co-operative success,both alone andwithin the G20, on behalf of all emerging countries. This is due primarily to the failure of the other international institutions from the 1944-45 and 1975 generations to give the leading emerging powers an equal, effective place and thus to solve the new, compounding global financial and other challenges and crises arising since 2008. The BRICS is a plurilateral summit institution growing in its level, membership, agenda and interaction intensity, with its summit performance rising to a substantial level across an increasing array of major dimensions of global summit governance. This performance was driven somewhat by the global financial, economic and food shocks since 2008, but primarily by the failure of the multilateral organizations from the 1940’s, the G8-plus process from 2003 and the first two G20 summits to give the big emerging powers the equal role, rights, responsibilities and effective influence that their rising relative capability and international openness warranted and that were needed to solve the new challenges of an intensely interconnected world. It was also due to the increasing institutionalization of the BRICS as a constricted, compact club, where rational incentives to co-operate slowly started to breed personal bonds that enhanced co-operation among the participants themselves.I am grateful for the research assistance of Caroline Bracht, Julia Kulik, Olga Milkina, Maria Marchyshyn and other members of the BRICS Research Group and the comments of anonymous referees.
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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
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".