Testing the Club Dynamics of the BRICS: The New Development Bank from Conception to Establishment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article addresses the puzzle of how the BRICS members are able to overcome institutional constraints and make progressin establishing the New Development Bank (NDB) in a short period of time from its conception. It argues that the club dynamicsamong the members help circumvent intra-BRICS conflict due to the embedded mutual common interest in statusattribution. Club dynamics also create an informal institutional platform for them to manoeuvre through intra-BRICS competitiveinterests by taking a symbolic stake in the bank’s development. Club diplomacy also downplays contentious issueswhile elevates and reinforces the issues of their common interest. Such an approach is tested, however, when the focus shiftsfrom externalized demands to collective action as a small group. Calls for reform in the global system notably through a moreequitable distribution of voice and influence in the international financial institutions (International Monetary Fund andthe World Bank) further consolidated the club-like culture among BRICS members. At the same time, the push for a boldinitiative of their own, such as the establishment of the NDB with the promise of massive infrastructure investment targetedat other countries in the global South, demonstrates the symbolic need to move beyond the status quo.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".