Bangladesh and New Development Bank (<scp>NDB</scp>): Accession and after, money and more
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines Bangladesh's new membership in the BRICS‐led New Development Bank (NDB), as the Bangladesh country study for the Special Section on ‘The Evolution of New Development Bank: A Decade Plus in the Making’, in Global Policy journal. In September 2021, Bangladesh became the first country outside of the original BRICS founding members to join NDB. The analysis details how Bangladesh went about joining NDB, especially the geopolitics and diplomacy between Bangladesh and the key NDB founding members (India, China, Russia) which supported Bangladesh's entry; why Bangladesh joined NDB, the main motivations or interests; and how NDB membership is turning out for Bangladesh after acceding to the Bank, what are Bangladesh and the Bank actually doing together, are they realizing the main opportunities as intended, or are outcomes not as intended. Throughout the analysis, we assess how Bangladesh's membership in NDB compares to its multi‐decade memberships in the World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB), Islamic Development, and its newer relations with the other new China‐supported multilateral bank, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). This study combines primary data gathered from field research, primary desk research, and cross‐verification with the related data, and secondary sources.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it