Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge is central to development. The \n World Bank invests about one-quarter of its budget for \n country services in knowledge products. Still, there is \n little research about the demand for these knowledge \n products and how internal knowledge flows affect their \n demand. About 49 percent of the World Bank's policy \n reports, which are published Economic and Sector Work or \n Technical Assistance reports, have the stated objective of \n informing the public debate or influencing the development \n community. This study uses information on downloads and \n citations to assesses whether policy reports meet this \n objective. About 13 percent of policy reports were \n downloaded at least 250 times while more than 31 percent of \n policy reports are never downloaded. Almost 87 percent of \n policy reports were never cited. More expensive, complex, \n multi-sector, core diagnostics reports on middle-income \n countries with larger populations tend to be downloaded more \n frequently. Multi-sector reports also tend to be cited more \n frequently. Internal knowledge sharing matters as cross \n support provided by the World Bank's Research \n Department consistently increases downloads and citations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".