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
The convergence hypothesis, which is developed in the context of growth economics, asserts that the income differences across countries are transitory, and developing countries will eventually attain the level of income of developed ones. On the other hand, convergence clubs hypothesis claim that the convergence can only be realized across groups of countries that share some common characteristics. In this study, we propose a new method to find convergence clubs that combines a pairwise method of testing convergence with maximum clique and maximal clique algorithms. Unlike many of those already developed in the literature, this new method aims to find convergence clubs endogenously without depending on a-priori classifications. In a Monte Carlo simulation study, the success of the method in finding convergence clubs is compared with a similar algorithm. Simulation results indicated that the proposed method perform better than the compared algorithm in most cases. In addition to the Monte Carlo, a new empirical evidence on the existence of convergence clubs is presented in the context of real data applications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.008 |
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