MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224441402 · doi:10.17323/1996-7845-2022-01-04

The Influence of the G20’s Digitalization Leadership on Development Conditions and Governance of the Digital Economy

2022· article· en· W4224441402 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Organisations Research Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEconomic and Technological Developments in Russia
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital economyCorporate governanceCONTESTEuropean unionBusinessCompetition (biology)International tradeEconomyEconomic systemEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the increasing importance of the digital economy, competition for digital technologies and solutions, as well as the contest to influence norms, standards, and regulatory mechanisms, is escalating. This influence is distributed unevenly—digitalization leaders, primarily the key Group of 20 (G20) members, gain significant advantages, increasing their potential for shaping digital regulation through the consistent inclusion of domestic standards and norms in the documents of multilateral institutions, including the G20, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the United Nations (UN) At the same time, Russia’s impact on the most important aspects of digital economy regulation at the global and regional level is currently limited. The article presents an assessment of the influence wielded by the leading G20 members (the U.S., Canada, the UK, the European Union (EU), Japan, Korea, China and India) on the digital economy’s development and regulation. This assessment serves as the basis for recommendations on Russia’s approaches to the specific aspects of regulation (digital infrastructure development, cybersecurity, regulating digital platforms, regulating global stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), data governance, and artificial intelligence (AI) policies) at the national level, as well as its engagement in the G20 and other multilateral institutions. The analysis indicates that the leading countries affect the digital economy mainly by determining conditions for activities in their domestic digital markets and participating in shaping new global standards and rules. In the areas of digital infrastructure development, cybersecurity, and data governance, there are growing contradictions between the approaches of the U.S., the UK, Japan and partly the EU and Korea on the one hand, and Russia, China and India on the other. Recommendations in these areas are related to strengthening coordination within the BRICS group of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to develop common positions and collectively promote them in the G20 and other multilateral institutions. The main recommendations on other regulatory aspects include using the experience of digitalization leaders to minimize the risks posed by competitors and to strengthen Russian positions in the global digital economy.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.262 · 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