Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article locates the genesis of the recent initiative to create minimal levels of social protection worldwide much earlier than conventional wisdom. Rather than seeing this initiative as a relatively new one, the author argues that it is resurrecting and building upon core ideas from the foundation of the postwar international economic order in the early 1940s. This argument rests on a major reinterpretation of the origins of the 1944 Bretton Woods agreements. Drawing on extensive archival work, the author shows that the Bretton Woods negotiations were informed by new commitments to provide ‘social security’ and ‘freedom from want’ worldwide in ways that echo the aspirations of contemporary proponents of the Social Protection Floor Initiative. These goals found widespread support not just among leading US and British policymakers at the time but also among many officials from other countries involved in the Bretton Woods negotiations, including those from poor countries. Although this aspect of the Bretton Woods vision was de-emphasized after the war, this neglected history helps to identify some deep intellectual and political roots of contemporary debates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".