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
Purpose Over the last two decades global cross‐border investment has increased. State‐owned and managed, sovereign‐wealth funds (SWFs), largely from the emerging‐market economies, have started playing a decisive role in underpinning, sustaining and expanding financial globalization. This paper aims to provide the reader with basic conceptual strands on the SWF, their genesis, coming into prime and recent spurt in their operations. Design/methodology/approach The paper focuses on defining SWFs and tracks their origin and growth. It explores the present and future market size of SWFs and examines the ramifications of this group of large institutional investors. It also answers the query whether anxieties about their operations are exaggerated and attempts to provide answers regarding some of the prickly policy questions. Findings The paper finds that, although they are an instrument of enhancing liquidity and financial resource allocation in the international capital market, they have become a source of controversies and threaten and escalation in financial protectionism. Originality/value The paper focuses on the concept of SWFs and the recent spurt in their activities and significance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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