The Coordinative Development Strategies of the World Economy: World Competitiveness Ranking under Economic Globalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is designed to study the coordinative development strategies of the world economy based on the world competitiveness ranking of the five giants in five continents: China in Asia, Russia in Europe, South Africa in Africa, The USA in America and Australia in Oceania (HAI Ping, YUN Ping, JING Tao, 1999), both in macro and micro comparison and analysis. Key words: coordinative development; strategies; world competitive ranking Resume: Ce document est concu pour etudier les strategies de developpement cooperatif de l'economie mondiale basees sur le classement de competitivite mondiale de cinq pays geants dans les cinq continents: la Chine en Asie, la Russie en Europe, l'Afrique du Sud en Afrique, les Etats-Unis en Amerique et l'Australie en Oceanie, tout en faisant des macro et micro comparaisons et analyses.Mots-cles: strategies de developpement; cooperative; classement de la competitivite mondiale
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".