Bibliographic record
Abstract
The next step in the reconstruction of our mental map of world order is that of considering the creation of a system of world public finance. The focus of world public finance would be to raise revenue to pay for the operations of the global public sector, including their activities in support of global public purposes, that is, those activities that are deemed to have global impact and which are not amenable to the actions of states, either acting alone or in groups. Included in these public purposes would be development financing, efforts on behalf of greater global equity, and the provision of global public goods. Each of these functions tends to be a subject of separate sets of discourse with limited overlap. I contend that the time has clearly come to talk about both world government and world public finance and to talk about both in terms that the urgency of our multiple, interconnected global crises requires, rather than the present financially and organizationally minimalist approach which often separates one need from another and then labors to earmark specific, often voluntary, revenues for unique purposes such as preventing the spread of AIDS. Our present problem-focused approach sometimes involves the creation of a new unit or a new international institution for a designated objective. Commonly the total resources—financial, human, and institutional—will not be increased but rather diverted from previous uses, as when foreign-aid funds were redirected after the fall of the Berlin Wall to the countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union from those in the global South. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.019 |
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".