Globalization in highly developed countries and reasons for differentiation
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
The main goal of this paper is to show the level of globalization, its changes and the reasons of differentiation in highly developed countries. The advanced hypothesis states that a convergence process is taking place in the sphere of globalization. The research methods used were the following: historical, literature, descriptive analysis and statistical methods. Statistical data used in this paper come from KOF Globalization Index, and the World Bank Database. The research covered 16 countries of Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. The time range of the research is 1990–2018. The conclusions of the study are as follows: highly developed countries are the most globalized. The level of globalization in individual countries varies, but the differences are not considerable. Medium-sized European countries are the most globalized, while non-European countries are the least globalized. The index of de jure globalization is much higher than the index of de facto globalization, especially in non-European countries. Starting from the 1990s, the level of globalization has increased significantly, although it has varied considerably. The highest increase was in the less globalized countries, the lowest in the most globalized ones. As a result, the differences between them have significantly decreased. Thus we can see the convergence in the sphere of globalization in highly developed countries. Differences in the level of globalization relate to land area, population number, population density, geographical location (distance from other highly developed countries) and participation in the integration process (countries that take part in it are virtually more globalized).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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