Bibliographic record
Abstract
Economic globalization has loomed, at least for some, as the world system's next crisis carrier. Globalization is said to accelerate economic growth rates, compel closer economic interactions throughout the globe, and trample on the distinctiveness of local cultures and sovereignty. While we accept the existence of economic globalization, our question in this article is whether it, or at least one important dimension of it, is truly a `global' process. A number of cleavages that have characterized the global North and South in the past appear to be growing more acute. Globalization, predicated on a motor of global economic growth, should be expected to be less than universal if the pulsations and effects of global economic growth are less than universal across the global South and North. That being the case, our theory anticipates that one aspect of economic globalization, conceptualized here as economic openness to exports, and measured by the ratio of export value to economic output, will be more discernible in the global North, than in the global South. Moreover, trade globalization in the North should be positively affected by a rise in world economic growth and systemic leadership, whereas trade globalization in the South should be driven largely by Southern autonomous inertia and periodic economic crises. The empirical results largely support our theoretical expectations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".