MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079103665 · doi:10.2307/4127374

Policies, Institutions and Industrial Development: Coping with Liberalisation and International Competition in India.

2002· article· en· W2079103665 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Affairs · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicIndian Economic and Social Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiberalizationCoping (psychology)BusinessCompetition (biology)International tradeEconomic systemMarket economyEconomicsMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PART ONE: POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES Introduction The State and the Development Process State, Market and Industrial Development PART TWO: INDIA: STATE INTERVENTION AND CONTROL, 1951-91 The Evolution of India's Industrial Policies The Institutional Framework for Policy Implementation Industrial Development Patterns, 1950-91 PART THREE: INDIA: POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE 1990'S Economic Crisis and Policy-making Institutional Constraints on Policy Implementation Industrial Development Patterns after 1991 PART FOUR: CONCLUSIONS AND WIDER PERSPECTIVES Policies, Institutions and Industrial Development Globalisation, State Autonomy and Industrial Development

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.150 · 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