Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why does international cooperation work for some enterprises and not for others? And what distinguishes the few that succeed from the majority that fail? In this tough-minded, lucid book, Debora L. Spar finds answers to these questions when she examines four commodity cartels. Along the way, she tells some intriguing stories of skulduggery and collusion. The author has interviewed and secured documents from mid-level and senior players in the global markets for diamonds, uranium, gold, and silver. She describes the remarkable success of the international diamond cartel and offers previously unpublished details about the longtime relationship between DeBeers, the South African diamond conglomerate, and the secretive diamond trading agencies of the former Soviet Union. Exploring the cautious collaboration that has long linked the Russian and South African gold producers, she examines what the breakup of the Soviet Union has meant for this relationship. She traces the short life and untidy demise of the Canadian-led international uranium cartel and probes the lack of cooperation among the world's silver producers. From these four cases she builds a picture of cooperation that departs significantly from the conventional portrayal and has wide ramifications for our understanding of cooperation among states as well as among firms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; 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".