The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank – New Multilateralism: Early Development, Innovation, and Future Agendas
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysts across the disciplines have started to address the development and agenda of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), however the collective understanding of major aspects of the AIIB's institutional evolution, and related multilateral cooperation and international contestation, remain fuzzy and fragmented. This Introductory article discusses how the AIIB has progressed so rapidly in three years, and provides an overview of the unique contributions of the 13 essays in this collection, and of the ways the essays complement one another. Focusing on the main trends and patterns in the AIIB's early development, four essays address major overarching themes that reflect the multilateral character of the Bank, and nine essays provide member‐country or regional perspectives on the new Bank, highlighting variations and complementarities in interests, ideas, and priorities among the broader membership of the Bank. The Introduction concludes with some implications for future research, and for AIIB policy and programming that can be drawn from the essays.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it