MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385347458 · doi:10.1111/1758-5899.13249

The United Arab Emirates and the New Development Bank: Mutual interests and <scp>first‐mover</scp> advantages

2023· article· en· W4385347458 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew F. Cooper, Brendon J. Cannon

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Policy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Power (physics)First-mover advantageBusinessPolitical scienceEconomyMarketingEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The United Arab Emirates (UAE) joined the BRICS‐led New Development Bank (NDB) as part of its first expansion in terms of membership. Questions regarding the interests and rationale of the UAE in joining the Bank, on the one hand, and the NDB's logic in granting membership to the UAE, on the other, immediately jump out. This article sheds light on the BRICS' cautious move away from exceptionality via the expanded NDB in the context of its membership criteria and approach. It does so by also highlighting the UAE's exceptionality, with a focus on the combination of fiscal resources and strategic geography, in the context of shifting global distributions of power. It finds that the UAE's membership in the NDB dovetails with its memberships in other MDBs, which, in turn, are part of the country's ambition to be seen as a globally influential actor. In turn, the NDB was attracted to the UAE fiscal acumen, credit rating and its carefully cultivated culture of cutting‐edge, sustainable, infrastructure and connectivity projects, as well as innovation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal PolicySame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207