MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1914308480

Toronto and Muskoka Summits: Expectations and Results

2010· article· en· W1914308480 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vadim Lukov

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Organisations Research Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummitPolitical scienceGeneral partnershipChristian ministryPublic administrationAction planConsolidation (business)Position (finance)EconomicsManagementLawFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vadim Lukov, Ambassador-at-Large, Deputy Representative of the President of Russia in the G8, Foreign Affairs Ministry Coordinator for G20 and BRIC Affairs; E-mail: vblukov@mail.ru The paper analyses results of the G8 and G20 summits held in Canada in June 2010 and their consequences for evolution of both forums and for their interaction. Among major achievements of the Toronto summit the author points out commitments on fiscal consolidation, IFI reform and on the start of country reviews of the implementation of the Framework Agreement on strong, sustainable and balanced growth. The G8 summit at Muskoka is viewed as a successful attempt to bring the G8 “back to basics” model - a leaders’ driven process at the center of which stands their informal direct dialogue. Key practical outcomes of the summit are the initiative on Maternal and Child Health Care, anti-terrorist action plan and decision to carry on the Global Partnership program in its present form. Russia’s position on main issues on G8 and G20 agenda is presented in the article.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Organisations Research JournalSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207