MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392778549 · doi:10.59876/a-fp9b-wy4v

Convergences et divergences de la transition vers le marché en Asie: Chine, Vietnam, Laos, Mongolie

2003· article· en· W4392778549 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marie Lavigne

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaConvergence (economics)Development economicsEast AsiaPolitical scienceDemocracyGeographyLiberalizationPovertyEconomyEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article begins with the hypothesis that the Asian market transition is specific when compared to the developments observed in Eastern Europe, and that within the countries observed, there are convergences and differences. One major factor of convergence in three of these countries, the maintenance of a communist regime, distinguishes them from Mongolia, which, like the countries of the CIS and Eastern Europe, introduced a democratic regime right from the start. However, the convergences prevail in the four countries studies. These include the essentially rural character of the economies; the low level of poverty; and the continuation of a remarkably high growth rate despite stabilization policies related to the transition itself and despite the Asian and Russian crises in 1997-1998. These brought about a deceleration of growth, overcome more quickly than among their neighbors. The macroeconomic policies hardly differed from the standard measures introduced in Easter Europe: liberalization, fighting inflation, and fighting budget deficits.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement international→Same topicEconomic Growth and Productivity→French-language works237,207→