Desarrollo Humano y los desafíos de la Global Governance: Por una rediscusión de la clasificación de los Middle Powers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En el contexto de los asuntos internacionales, dos grupos de paises reciben una particular atencion de los analisis academicos y politicos: Traditional Middle Powers y Emerging Middle Powers. Traditional Middle Powers son representados por paises industrializados, democraticos e igualitarios con un alto nivel de desarrollo social y politico y considerados como good international citizens, por auxiliar en el sostenimiento del orden implantado por las potencias hegemonicas(como ejemplo, Australia, Canada, Japon). El concepto de Emerging Middle Powers respecta a paises con gran performance economico y proyeccion internacional, pero despreocupados con politicas de bienestar, especialmente, porque no presentan un sistema politico democratico consolidado y un adecuado nivel de igualdad social, como el caso de los BRICS (Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudafrica). En ese complejo escenario, es posible encontrar un grupo de paises que, desapercibido por la teoria politica internacional, situase en un punto intermedio entre las Traditional y Emerging Middle Powers. Ellos son caracterizados por la existencia de politicas orientadas a la conjugacion de crecimiento economico y oferta de buena calidad de vida a la poblacion, lo que refleja en sus altos niveles de Desarrollo Humano (IDH). Asi, constatamos la necesidad de construir una identidad conceptual para ese grupo de paises atribuyendoles un perfil politico-institucional ante el nuevo orden mundial y estableciendo su papel en el contexto internacional.
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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".