Bibliographic record
Abstract
The English language material on the contemporary Indonesian economy is modest in comparison with that of India, China and Asia's NIEs. Nevertheless, scholars can no longer lament, as Bruce Glassburner did one-quarter of a century ago, in the introduction to his The Economy of Indonesia (1971), ‘… the minor role to which the economics profession of the world has relegated Indonesia’. There are three journals published on the Indonesian economy, Ekonomi dan Keuangan Indonesia, Jurnal Ekonomi Indonesia (both published in Jakarta, and bi-lingual), and the Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies (Canberra). Important edited collections have been published over the past 15 years, including (Booth ed. 1992), Booth and McCawley (eds. 1981), and Papanek (1980). During the past decade, specialist books on agriculture, such as Pearson et al. (1991) and several others, have appeared, while the list on industry includes Poot et al. (1990). The World Bank publishes an annual report on the economy, for limited readership but widely Circulated, as well as many other specialist reports. Then there are those books with a regional flavour, both general in nature (Hill ed., 1989) and focused (Dick, Fox and Mackie eds, 1993, on East Java). In addition, Indonesia is now regularly the focus of articles both in regional journals, such as the ASEAN Economic Bulletin, Asian-Pacific Economic Literature , the Journal of Asian Business , and in international journals. But the literature on the Indonesian economy is still rather limited for a country which ranks as the fourth most populous in the world, as the largest Islamic nation, and as the dominant country in Southeast Asia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.444 | 0.290 |
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".