MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2336656774

The G8-G20 Relationship in Global Governance (Introduction)

2015· article· en· W2336656774 on OpenAlexaff
John Kirton

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinancial crisisRecessionTerrorismChinaEmerging marketsGlobal recessionPolitical scienceCorporate governanceDevelopment economicsEconomyGeographyBusinessEconomicsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The twenty-first century has brought a proliferation of pressing global problems that break out far more suddenly and surprisingly, spread more swiftly and extensively, and interact in more complex and uncertain ways than ever before. On the eve of the century there was a financial crisis in Asia that began in 1997 and consumed countries in the Americas, Europe, and the Middle East over the following years. The terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, began a new era of global mega-terrorism, which quickly spread to many other countries and led to a war in Afghanistan that endured for over a decade. The collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers in New York on September 15, 2008, catalysed an American-turned-global financial crisis that immediately created the world’s worst recession since the one in the 1930s that had brought such great destruction in its wake. This new recession was followed by a European financial crisis that erupted in 2010.These new crises and their accompanying challenges have demanded and received a forceful, innovative, global governance response. The established Group of Seven (G7) major market democracies added Russia as a full member in 1998 to become the Group of Eight (G8) and reached out to embrace as participants the leading African countries in 2001, the emerging powers of China, Brazil, India, Mexico, and South Africa by 2005, and then Korea and Indonesia to address climate change by 2008. In November 2008, the Group of 20 (G20) systemically significant countries, formed in 1999 at the level of finance ministers and central bank governors, leapt to the leaders’ level to become a vibrant summit club. And in 2008 another plurilateral summit institution (PSI), assembling the big emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and, later, South Africa (BRICS), arrived on the scene.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicInternational Development and Aid→French-language works237,207→