Bibliographic record
Abstract
Die Rolle des Internationalen Währungsfonds (IWF) in der internationalen Finanzarchitektur ist seit seiner Gründung umstritten. Im Zuge der asiatischen Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise in der zweiten Hälfte der 1990er Jahre erreichte die Auseinandersetzung eine neue Dimension. Globale Proteststürme und Kritik von Seiten prominenter Experten haben die Legitimität des IWF empfindlich gestört - seine Politik sei krisenverschärfend und einseitig auf Interessen großer Gläubiger ausgerichtet. Mit dem IWF rückte auch der Washington Consensus als neoliberale EntwicklungsÝ programmatik verstärkt ins Sichtfeld der Kritiker. Die in Folge unternommenen Versuche, den Aufgabenbereich des IWF zu reformulieren, blieben jedoch relativ erfolglos. Diesen Reformdiskurs analysiert der Autor aus einer machttheoretischen Perspektive und durchleuchtet dabei die Organisation des Washington Consensus.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.039 |
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".