Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship among globalization, inequality, and growth is currently a major focus of scholars and policy-makers around the world. The problem is that globalization engenders growing interdependence and a marked rise in international inequalities in income distribution, while inequality constrains economic growth and promotes social and political instability. A clear understanding of this dilemma is necessary in order to formulate better development theories and policies in the current era of globalization. Scholars and policy-makers in the English-speaking Caribbean have been drawn to these issues since the late 1980s through an intensive and extensive rethinking of development strategies pursued in the region that has resulted in four major sets of ideas on how the region could grow and develop. These are the competitive insertion and the strategic global repositioning of the region in the global economy, collective lobbying in global institutions, and strengthened governance. A close examination of these dominant ideas reveals that they merely echo the neoliberal views on globalization. Therefore, the main proposition of this paper is that the present course of economic, political and social action proposed for growth and development in the Caribbean based on these four sets of ideas will only increase inequality in the region, in what the US neo-conservatives have called “the new American 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".