MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999605280 · doi:10.2190/aabl-cj6j-g3p5-8g5u

The Scorecard on Development: 25 Years of Diminished Progress

2006· article· en· W1999605280 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Weisbrot, Dean Baker, David Rosnick

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Services · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife expectancyContext (archaeology)Economic growthQuarter (Canadian coin)Development economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceDemographic economicsMedicineGeographyEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article looks at the available data on economic growth and various social indicators-including health outcomes and education-and compares the past 25 years (1980-2005 or latest available year) with the prior two decades (1960-1980). The past 25 years have seen a sharp slowdown in the rate of economic growth for the vast majority of low- and middle-income countries. For the health indicators, there is a marked decrease in progress for life expectancy and for infant, child, and adult mortalities. For education, there is a reduction in progress in secondary school enrollment and in public spending on education, and reduced progress in primary school enrollment for the bottom two quintiles of countries. The results are discussed in the context of a number of economic reforms implemented over the past 25 years, with the intention of promoting growth and development. The authors conclude that economists and policymakers should devote more effort to determining the causes of the economic and development failure of the last quarter-century.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0130.012
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
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

Citations42
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health ServicesSame topicGlobal Financial Crisis and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207