MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2502916525 · doi:10.1057/9780230117402_9

Rich versus Poor in the Global Economy

2010· book-chapter· en· W2502916525 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William R. Nester

Bibliographic record

VenuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanitationPovertyQuarter (Canadian coin)HumanityMiddle classDeveloping countryDevelopment economicsConsumption (sociology)World economyEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomyGeographyEconomicsSociologySocial scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the modern world's paradoxes is that it displays so many unprecedented ways for individuals to enrich their lives emotionally, materially, intellectually, politically, and aesthetically, yet all that hovers like a mirage beyond the grasp of most of humanity. In the global economy, there is a rich class of about 15 percent of the total number of countries, a middle class of about 35 percent of all countries, and a low-income class that includes more than half of all countries. A recent World Bank report vividly revealed a Third World mired in poverty: "Of the 4.4 billion people in developing countries, nearly three-fifths lack basic sanitation; a third have no access to clean water; a quarter lack adequate housing; and a fifth have no access to modern health services. About 20 percent of children do not complete five years of school, and a similar percentage does not receive enough calories and protein from their diet."1KeywordsInternational Monetary FundForeign InvestmentGlobal EconomyWorld CountryGross National ProductThese 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalgrave Macmillan US eBooksSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207