Bibliographic record
Abstract
El concepto BRIC no proviene del ambito diplomatico. La apuesta de los gobiernos de los BRIC ha sido encontrar agendas que les permitan actuar como un colectivo de la manera mas amplia. La pertinencia de este grupo se medira en su capacidad de influir globalmente. La cuestion que se me presenta y da origen a este articulo, en mi opinion, no podria ser mas pertinente.1 Es fundamental, desde el principio, distinguir entre utilizar el termino o acronimo �BRIC� en singular, como referencia al grupo en que interactuan Brasil, Rusia, India y China, y emplear el plural �BRICs�, cuando se remite a la nocion de cuatro paises emergentes que, siguiendo sus propios cursos de desarrollo, deben desempenar un papel creciente en la economia mundial de acuerdo con estudios realizados por el sector privado. Desde el punto de vista del surgimiento del concepto �BRICs�, creo que lo fundamental es que no proviene de una dimension diplomatica. El concepto surgio en 2001 en un informe elaborado por Jim O�Neill, economista jefe del banco de inversion Goldman Sachs. Titulado Building Better Global Economic BRICs, el estudio analizaba las perspectivas de crecimiento economico de Brasil, Rusia, India y China en los 10 anos siguientes y concluia que se produciria una modificacion profunda del panorama financiero internacional en un futuro no distante y, por tanto, los formuladores de politicas deberian estar atentos a ese cambio.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.181 | 0.076 |
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".