Bibliographic record
Abstract
The OECD, established in 1961 and now consisting of thirty-six member states, has unique features as an intergovernmental and transnational actor because it is neither a lending nor a treaty organization. It relies primarily on knowledge production, standard-setting, and monitoring techniques, such as comparative data, and most prominently, peer review. The chapter begins with a sketch of the organization’s highly intricate structure of committees, centres, boards, forums, working groups, and networks (over 250 such specialized bodies), and the supporting secretariat of directorates. Complementing this complex internal structure is an equally complex array of global engagements with other international actors through partnerships, forums, and networks. The OECD’s influence arises from its unmatched capacity to produce credible knowledge, define key policy concepts, and promote standards (through a variety of different types of international decisions, conventions, and recommendations). Its signature compliance and monitoring technique is peer review.
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 | 0.138 | 0.276 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.012 |
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".