A Sub-representação de potências emergentes em instituições financeiras internacionais: a atuação dos BRICS no FMI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O agrupamento denominado BRICS, composto por Brasil, Russia, India, China e Africa do Sul, que representa hoje 25% do PIB, 42% da populacao e 40% do toda a forca de trabalho existente no mundo, alcancou na ultima decada crescimento economico superior ao que se viu naqueles paises que constituem o Norte politico, a rigor Uniao Europeia, EUA e seus aliados tradicionais (Japao, Canada e Coreia do Sul). Tal crescimento, todavia nao foi acompanhado por um substancial amadurecimento da representacao politica desses paises no sistema financeiro internacional. Com o intuito de corrigir tal situacao, buscando tornar o sistema internacional um ambiente mais justo, minimizando as disparidades entre Norte e Sul, os BRICS lutam para que uma reforma estrutural seja concretizada nas Instituicoes oriundas de Bretton Woods. O presente trabalho busca ilustrar algumas das dificuldades que tais potencias emergentes vem enfrentando na luta para romper o status quo do Sistema Financeiro Internacional estabelecido no pos-Segunda Guerra pelas potencias tradicionais, especialmente no que tange a sugestao de reforma no sistema de cotas do Fundo Monetario Internacional.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".