Quadruple of Per Capita GDP in China is a Useless Developing Goal
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 paper thinks that per capita GDP as development goal isn’t rational in our country, because this index has many defects. It doesn’t reflect income level & standard of living、sustainable development degree & transformation of economical growth mode，it conceals the fact that polarization is becoming more serious as time goes on and intensifies the wrong thought that economical growth is absolute truth、furthers “bubble economy” development etc. Lastly it suggests a series of indexes as development goal with income of farmer & poor citizen at the core. Key Words: Per Capita GDP; Income Level; Polarization; Economical Growth Mode; Economical Growth is Absolute Truth Resume: Cette etude estime que le PIB par habitant en tant que l'objectif de developpement n'est pas rationnel dans notre pays, parce que cet indice a de nombreux defauts. Il ne reflete ni le niveau de revenu≤ standard de vie, ni le degre de developpement durable& la transformation de mode de croissance economique, il dissimule le fait que la polarisation est de plus en plus grave au fur et a mesure que le temps passe et intensifie la mauvaise estime que la croissance economique est la verite absolue, favorise de futures bulles de l'economie de developpement etc. Enfin, il suggere une serie d'indices en tant que l'objectif de developpement avec le revenu des agriculteurs & des citoyens pauvres a la base. Mots-cles: le PIB par habitant, le niveau de revenu; la polarisation; le mode de croissance economique, la croissance economique est la verite absolue 摘要：本文認為用人均GDP作為我國的發展目標很不恰當，因為該指標有太多的缺陷：不反映人民的收入水平和生活水平、不反映可持續發展水平的高低和經濟增長方式的轉變、掩蓋了兩極分化越來越嚴重的事實、強化“增長就是硬道理”的錯誤思想、助長“泡沫經濟”的發展等，最後提出以農民和城鎮低收入居民的收入為主要指的一組指標體系作為發展目標。 關鍵詞：人均GDP；收入水平；兩極分化；經濟增長方式；增長就是硬道理
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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