Managing the Global Economy Since World War II:The Institutional Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In July 1944, delegates from 44 countries convened the Bretton WoodsConference, and within 22 days they endorsed a framework for internationaleconomic cooperation after World War II. Two international economic organizations resulted from the Bretton Woods Conference-the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) or World Bank-and in 1948 the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) became the main global trade organization. These organizations were part of a complex institutional framework to help manage the postwar global economy. Although the Bretton Woods negotiations were “the first successful attempt . . . by a large group of nations to shape and control their economic relations,”1 only a small number of states had a critical role in the process. The three years of prenegotiations before Bretton Woods and the conference itself were “very much an Anglo-American affair, with Canada playing a useful mediating role,”2 and the chief conference planners were Harry Dexter White of the U.S. Treasury and John Maynard Keynes of Britain. Although French delegates were at the conference, France was still occupied by Germany; and Germany, Italy, and Japan as enemy states were not represented. Despite some basic differences of outlook, the Western DCs generally agreed on the postwar institutional order. Above all, they wanted to avoid a repetition of the interwar period experiences, when exchange controls and trade protectionism contributed to the 1930s Great Depression and World War II.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".