MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W341705180

The Oecd at Fifty: Some Observations on the Evolving Nature of an International Organization

2011· article· en· W341705180 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicola Bonucci

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œGeorge Washington international law review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean Union Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandatePolitical scienceSuccessor cardinalGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)Position (finance)Marshall PlanInternational communityConventionLawEconomic growthPublic administrationEconomicsPoliticsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was created in December 1960 and Convention establishing it came into force in September 1961, but OECD was not created from scratch. The OECD is, technically speaking, successor to for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC)1. The future of OEEC came into question soon after establishment of European Economic Community (EEC) in 1958. Created ten years before to administer aid provided by Canada and United States for reconstruction of Europe under European Recovery Program, known as Marshall Plan, OEEC had effectively fulfilled its mandate.2 The discussions on a possible transformation of OEEC had already started in 1952, following end of Marshall Plan, but these talks accelerated in late 1950s. On December 21, 1959, Heads of State and Government of France, United States, Federal Republic of Germany, and United Kingdom met in Paris to discuss the important changes that have taken place in international economic situation.3 The communique that was issued on that occasion is worth mentioning in some detail. First, four countries: agreed that virtually all of industrialised part of free world is now in a position to devote its energies in increased measure to new and important tasks of co-operative endeavour with object of: a) furthering development of less developed countries, and b) pursuing trade policies directed to sound use of economic resources and maintenance of harmonious international relations, thus contributing to growth and stability in world economy and to a general improvement in standard of living.4 Second, The Heads of State and Government, recognising that method of furthering these principles requires intensive study, have agreed to call an informal meeting to be held in Paris in near future. They suggest that members and participants of Executive Committee of OEEC and Governments whose nationals are members of Steering Board for Trade of OEEC should be represented at this meeting. It is proposed that an objective of such a group should be to consider need for and methods of continuing consultations dealing with above-mentioned problems.5 A few weeks later, in January 1960, a meeting in Paris of a Special Economic Committee, consisting of ministers of thirteen countries and a representative of EEC, adopted a Resolution on Study of Reorganisation of OEEC.6 The Resolution appointed, inter alia, a group of experts7 (the of Four) to prepare a report on reorganization of OEEC, and, notably, to identify those functions at present performed by OEEC which should continue to be subject of international economic co-operation under aegis of proposed improved organisation8 The Group of Four submitted its report, A Remodelled Economic Organisation: A Report by Group of Four (Report), in April 1960, which included specific proposals for new organization's membership, name and structure, [as well as] necessary juridical and transitional arrangements, and conclude[d] with a suggested draft Convention.9 This Report served as basis of Report of Preparatory Committee of reconstituted Organisation which led to adoption on December 14, 1960, of Convention establishing for Economic Co-operation and Development. In analyzing these historical documents, in particular Report produced by Group of Four, it is striking to see both degree of continuity between OEEC and OECD, in terms of substance, structure, and methodology, and at same time, extent to which OECD has evolved to adapt to a rapidly changing world. As Group of Four indicated in its Report in remarkable foresight: [i]n short, it became clear that, while some of objectives of OEEC had not yet been completely achieved, Members would in future be devoting a greater part of their collective efforts to dealing with problems and tasks arising out of their relationships with rest of world. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œGeorge Washington international law reviewSame topicEuropean Union Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207