MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077411491 · doi:10.1177/000944551004600106

Developing Countries: Impact of the Crisis and the Response—Implications for an Approach to the G20 by Russia, India and China

2010· article· en· W2077411491 on OpenAlexaff
Manmohan Agarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueChina Report · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal Financial Crisis and Policies
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaDeveloping countryStimulus (psychology)World economyEmerging marketsEconomicsChinese economyDevelopment economicsDeveloped countryFinancial crisisEconomyEconomic systemBusinessEconomic growthPolitical scienceMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines five issues: 1) Recent performance of developing countries in terms of growth, investment and integration with the world economy; 2) The impact of the crisis on these economies; 3) The response of policy makers in these economies to mitigate the adverse impact, in particular, the nature of the stimulus packages implemented in these economies; 4) The role developing countries can play in the recovery of the world economy; and 5) The role of China in the recovery, and, in particular, how to deal with the bilateral imbalance between the US and China. Special attention is paid to the behaviour of the economies of the developing country members of the G20 (DG20).1 Finally, the paper discusses what the crisis has revealed about the interests of Russia, India and China in the world economy and consequently a possible strategy for the G20 which would serve their interests.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueChina ReportSame topicGlobal Financial Crisis and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207