Brazil and South Africa: The Weak Links of the BRICS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the central role of the state in international relations is challenged, many new actors are emerging on the world stage. Today, there are a multitude of international organizations or groups of countries with considerable influence. Among the latter, the BRICS are drawing increasing attention with greater economic and political weight. Calling for the need to build a multipolar world, the ideological approach of the group of five dynamic world economies is intended to unite in a world marked by Western hegemony. It is important to note, however, that the five countries that make up the BRICS have their own specificities, which differentiates them from one another. Apart from the ideological constant that undeniably unites them, the BRICS are above all five distinct economies, five political systems, five foreign policies, to name but a few factors. The author uses a number of criteria to analyze the place of Brazil and South Africa in the BRICS. Referring to the weaknesses of these two countries, the author pays a close attention to their foreign policy approach in the context of BRICS' restructuring of the world order, as well as to the political scandals identified in the last decade at the top of these two countries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".