MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112665154 · doi:10.11114/ijsss.v2i4.446

The World Bank’s Discourse on Social Inequality: A Policy of Appeasement?

2014· article· en· W2112665154 on OpenAlex
Olivia Gabrielle Merritt, Neena L. Chappell

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Science Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppeasementSafeguardingCritical discourse analysisPoliticsSocial inequalitySociologyHegemonyLatin AmericansPolitical scienceInequalityPolitical economyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Locating ‘social justice’ and ‘social consciousness’ as new buzzwords in dominant economic development paradigms, this paper explores the contradictions between discourse and economic structure in recent social policy programs implemented through World Bank involvement in Latin America (2000-2012). The authors use a critical discourse analysis technique to analyze official World Bank documents pertaining to two projects, the Jefes de Hogar (Argentina) and the Bolsa Familia (Brazil). The study concluded that social justice/quality of life discourse was used in a superficial manner, with the overarching goals of World Bank social policy remaining to be the hegemonic safeguarding of global neoliberal economic-political structures.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.407 · 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