The G20 is not just a G7 with extra chairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wake of the global crisis the G20 has largely substituted the G7 as the key forum for international economic cooperation. However, G7 and non-G7 members of the G20 come to G20 meetings with different priorities. Developed countries have taken a direct hit on their banking and financial systems as a result of the crisis and they accordingly give priority to strengthening financial regulation and supervision. Emerging economies have been primarily affected by the collapse of trade and (mostly in emerging Europe) the outflow of capital. Their priority is thus to ward off the reemergence of protectionism in trade and finance. As newcomers, the emerging countries are also focused on the distribution of power and they adamantly claim that they need more say in international institutions. So far, the G20 agenda has been dominated by the management of the global turmoil, the provision of financial resources to countries in crisis, and the rebuilding of financial regulation –a rather G7-like agenda. Meanwhile, it has been silent on the issue of global imbalances, where it could have made a difference. In the future, the G20's agenda will have to evolve and better reflect the variety of concerns of its members.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.107 | 0.060 |
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".