World development report 2011: conflict, security, and development
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
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgement On 1 June 2011 the University of Ottawa and the International Development Research Centre co-hosted a roundtable to discuss WDR 2011. The debate between the main panellists (John de Boer, Joseph Ingram, Nigel Roberts, Yiagadeesen Samy, Pamela Scholey and Christoph Zuercher) has greatly informed this review. Nonetheless, the author bears full responsibility for the analysis presented herein. Notes Les noms entiers de ces organisations sont l'Agence canadienne de développement international (ACDI), le Centre de recherches pour le développement international (CRDI), le Conseil canadien pour la coopération internationale (CCCI), l'Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale (AQOCI), et l'Association canadienne d'études du développement international (ACEDI). Les pays-membres du G-20 sont l'Argentine, l'Australie, le Brésil, le Canada, la Chine, la France, l'Allemagne, l'Inde, l'Indonésie, l'Italie, le Japon, le Mexique, la Russie, l'Arabie saoudite, l'Afrique du Sud, la Corée, la Turquie, le Royaume-Uni, les États-Unis et l'Union européenne.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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