MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation

2012· other· en· W1542581462 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ippei Yamazawa

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization · 2012
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaAction planInvestment (military)Asia pacificInternational tradePolitical scienceEconomic communityEconomic growthEconomyForeign direct investmentEast AsiaBusinessEconomicsManagementPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is an intergovernmental forum for increasing trade and investment as well as economic cooperation in the Asia Pacific region. It began in 1989 as a series of annual meetings of foreign and trade ministers from 12 member economies (the five industrialized economies of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States, the Republic of Korea, and the six ASEAN members of Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand), focusing on economic cooperation. Three Chinas (the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Chinese Taipei) joined in 1991. Since the first Economic Leaders' Meeting in Seattle in 1993, APEC leaders declared that they would achieve “free and open trade and investment in the region.” In 1994 they declared ambitious Bogor Goals, setting a deadline for achieving them by 2010 for industrialized economies and by 2020 for the rest of the members. The Osaka Action Agenda was adopted in 1995, and since 1997 each member economy has been submitting an annual Individual Action Plan (IAP) detailing their actions to meet the Bogor Goals and implementing them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1410.076

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of GlobalizationSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207