Non-aligned common front: strategic imaginaries of the New International Economic Order (NIEO)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifty years after the Sixth Special Session, the Progressive International (PI) has declared a strategy of "renovating the NIEO". However, key questions remain about the decisions that created and led the original campaign. The NIEO's draft declarations were brought to the UN General Assembly by the leaders of 95 states, caucused as the G77. Their solidarity was necessarily pluralistic, drawing on Marxist and Liberal visions of what Adom Getachew called “post-imperial worldmaking”. This raises the question of how this global "common front" was possible, and what the PI might do differently this time. As a partial explanation, I compare two of the project's strategic imaginaries, showing that they were successfully synthesised in practice. As this legacy inspires the PI's focus on the possibilities of sovereign debt crises, the NIEO continues to play an important historical role. It alludes to possible options, or alternative futures, of world order and global development.
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 | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".