Reviving the International Monetary Fund: Concerns for the Health of the Poor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite optimism about the potential for a "new economic order," the outcomes of the G20 summit of April 2009 do not deviate from the neoliberal path. The main outcome, the G20's commitment to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), does not change the lending practices and core economic assumptions of the IMF. Further, this new funding commitment will do little to help the poorest countries, as it is not available to them and comes with high interest. Institutions that more actively consider health, such as the World Bank and World Health Organization, may have failed to win resources and authority because they have not demonstrated how they could expand or modify their activities, and because of broader ideological debates pitting social protection against economic stimulus. Reforms in IMF practices and economic assumptions may provide some limited protection of health spending. These reforms can allow for inclusion of the benefits of health programs in economic forecasting, dismissal of the assumption that aid will be short-term, and removal of indirect limits on public sector health spending. These reforms in IMF practices are urgently needed, but fall short of making health and social protection an integral component of efforts promoting economic stability.
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 | 0.016 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".