Bibliographic record
Abstract
The twentieth century has often been termed ‘the American century’ and, until recently, the twenty-first century had seemingly continued the trend of US dominance in formal global institutions like the United Nations (UN) and ad-hoc institutions like the ‘G7’ economic grouping of developed countries. States like India, and particularly China, are growing in influence and economic might, but they have yet to eclipse the United States, and neither has the European Union (EU). One reason is that the only really conceivable economic or political blocs to emerge in recent times as competitors to the West have far too many internal disagreements. Jim O’Neil, the former Goldman Sachs economist and the inventor of the term ‘BRICS’ in 2001, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa is dismissive of these countries ever being able to form a common currency or a central bank. He called it ‘ridiculous … embarrassing almost’ and added that they had ‘never achieved anything since they first started meeting’. He did agree that ‘the global financial system [is] not beneficial for emerging countries’ because the US Federal Reserve works ‘in the interests of the US’ ( O&s;Neil 2023 ). But many observers disagree. The narrative of global power and influence is visibly shifting from a unilateral to a multilateral one. Meetings where China, Russia and India, all BRIC nations, sit down to discuss world affairs are as followed in the international press as much as are G7 or G20 developed nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States, with the EU in attendance). Russia was expelled in 2014 over its invasion of Crimea, a stance strengthened at the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, Japan, in 2023 ( Al Jazeera 2023 ).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.164 | 0.057 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".