The G20 and Its Regional Critics: The Search for Inclusion
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
This article presents an analysis of the G20 which, while recognising the innovative capacity of this leaders’ forum, also addresses one of its major sources of contestation, the lack of equitable regional balance. Whereas the EU has an overrepresentation within the G20 membership, other regional constituencies including the Caribbean, the Nordics, Southeast Asia and Africa have been underrepresented or excluded completely. This has consequences in terms of heightening the legitimacy gap already in place due to the summit’s image as a self-selected concert of big powers. Yet the excluded regions have advocated inclusion, not rejection, of the G20. The main focus of the article is therefore on the practical means by which forms of inclusion should and can be enhanced. To its credit, South Korea as host of the November 2010 G20 has moved to address some of the problems associated with these representational imbalances. But the search for inclusion needs to be stepped up to enhance the G20’s position as a model of legitimate global governance. Moreover, many of the mechanisms to promote inclusion are feasible, taking advantage of the flexibility in the design of the G20 project as it has evolved over the past two years.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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