Bibliographic record
Abstract
The India–Brazil–South Africa (IBSA) Dialogue Forum was launched in June 2003 to push for these countries' bids for a place on the United Nation' Security Council, but IBSA's attention has shifted over time towards development and economic reform. This article discusses the progress in addressing social development challenges within the member countries of IBSA. It examines the social achievements of IBSA members, in the context of their economic performance and the Millennium Development Goals. It also assesses the forces which propel these societies' social policies, especially the influence of civil society, and whether there has been benefit in this regard in their collaboration within the IBSA forum. Their experiences show the critical importance of civil society in design and execution of programmes directed towards the poor, an important factor to be kept in mind by multilateral and bilateral agencies involved in poverty alleviation projects in developing countries. The three nations could cooperate to share ideas for effective social welfare programmes, and join together in multilateral forums to form a powerful voice for change.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".