Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In the background of the global economic and financial crisis, one hears and reads nothing but excoriation and denunciation of globalization. The purpose of this paper is to provide an honest and objective analysis of the contemporary global economic scenario, which reveals numerous challenges that globalization engendered in different countries, country groups as well as in the global economy. This paper asserts that globalization has a positive side as well. The trauma of the continuing crisis is vitiating the enormous constructive contribution made by economic and financial globalization in the contemporary period. Design/methodology/approach The paper looks at: globalization as a welfare‐enhancing force; some front runners of globalization and particularly the ascent and economic integration of East Asia, China, India, the BRICS, etc. and latecomers to globalization. Findings The essential findings of this paper are that country groups like East Asia in the past and China and India at present have benefited immensely from economic and financial globalization. Rapid group in the sub‐group of economies referred to as the emerging‐market economies is made possible by economic and financial globalization. The ascent of these economic groups is changing the contours of the global economy. The newest achievement of economic and financial globalization is a favorable impact over the former non‐market economies and Africa. Both of these are regarded as challenging cases in the past. Originality/value Economic and financial globalization has remained a controversial issue. This paper takes a bold and original perspective in focusing on its favorable contributions at a time point when it is being deprecated for causing a great deal of upheaval in the global economy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".