Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Economic development studies are concerned with how nation‐states have, could, and/or should improve their populations' quality of life, reduce the infant mortality rate, and increase life expectancy through economic development. Despite the assessments of different development initiatives after World War II and the rise of development studies, there is no consensus on how best to pursue these goals. Nonetheless, the politically and socially important pursuit of economic development continues, and involves scholars, nation‐states, regional and international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and philanthropic foundations. This entry examines six different phases of economic development and their theoretical perspectives during the post‐World War II period: the theory of modernization, which extended from 1945 into the 1960s; the development theory of Andre Gunder Frank and world‐systems theories of Immanuel Wallerstein that dominated in the 1960s and 1970s; the 1980s “developmental state” or “hard state” approach following the development successes of the East Asian Tigers; the neoliberal approach that took hold in the 1980s; the neoinstitutional approach beginning in the 1990s; and the rethinking of economic development in terms of genuine progress indicators rather than gross domestic product.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.028 |
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".