Komparacija anglosaksonskog i skadndinavskog ekonomskog socijalnog modela
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
According to the rough typology, we can distinguish at least three economic social models. This paper provides descriptions, examples and comparisons of the two most common used models, the Anglo-Saxon model and Scandinavian model. The Anglo-Saxon model is characterized by large market freedom, ie the liberal attitude of the state towards the market, which has a positive impact on the development of the economy and enables a good entrepreneurial climate. The second feature of the model is low state care about the social rights of citizens and workers, which as a result has a big gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike the Anglo-Saxon, the Scandinavian model has a high level of social sensitivity and large market freedom. The Nordic countries are often seen as an example of the great balance between the social rights of citizens and the free market. They are classified into a highly developed countries of the world and also, they are one of the most desirable destinations for life. The country that has the most features of the Anglo-Saxon model in its policies is the United States, while the Scandinavian countries in their policies differ only in shades. Both models have their similarities and differences, advantages and disadvantages as a result of the various circumstances and environments in which countries have developed. Countries which belongs to the Anglo-Saxon model are the United States, Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, while Scandinavian model is being implemented by the Nordic countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Finland.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.051 |
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