Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Group of Twenty (G20) was created at the ministerial level in response to the global financial crisis that erupted from Asia in 1997, and then at the leaders' level after the greater crisis from the United States in 2008. These crises called into question the core principles and practices of the dominant liberal order and its core international institutions, based on economic, social and political openness, developed since 1944. The G20 combined all established and emerging countries with high capability and connectivity to operate as equals to fulfill its dual distinctive foundational mission of promoting financial stability and making globalization work for all. Since its first summit in 2008 its performance spiked at Hamburg, Germany in 2017 and remained solid at Buenos Aires in 2018. These latter summits coped well with the new populist, protectionist U.S. president and a UK prime minister withdrawing her country from the European Union. G20-supported initiatives for rules-based open trade, climate change control and security were advanced. No other global summit emerged to govern an increasingly globalized world. With the forces that propelled this rising performance growing, future G20 summits promise to perform well along this proven path. The next summit, in Osaka, Japan on 28-29 July 2019 will be hosted by a country that has never sparked a financial crisis, remains dedicated to the core liberal order and is becoming more economically and even demographically open in response to the growing vulnerabilities it and its G20 partners face. After a test in 2020 when the G20 summit will be hosted in Saudi Arabia -a still-closed polity with a single staple, state-controlled economy -G20 stewardship returns to democratic, economically open Italy in 2021 and India in 2022.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".