China and Global Financial Governance: Centripetalism, Elevation and Disparity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the post-2008 global financial crisis era, the global financial governance system has experienced dramatic changes and a comparatively new network system comes into the fore. Meanwhile, China’s extraordinary performance during the crisis by virtue of its unique political and economic systems urged the elevation of its role in the new system. Against this backdrop, three words are appropriate to describe the new system and China’s role in it in the post-crisis era-centripetalism (rather than centrifugalism), elevation (rather than domination) and disparity (rather than coherence). Centripetalism means that patched global financial governance network system has more force to coordinate states and related international organizations. Elevation refers to a relatively more important role of China in the new system, but, by no means, a dominant (or hegemonic) role. China is an indispensable participant rather than a leading power in global financial governance. Disparity indicates the differed strategies of China in various global financial governance institutions or toward different events.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it