MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410923894 · doi:10.5539/res.v17n1p37

Well, Who Oversees the Development Potential?

2025· article· en· W4410923894 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Giovanni Antonio COSSIGA

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Development and Aid
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A good government is responsible for managing the economy, that is, the lives of human beings who depend on the economy. A sentence that seems impeccable. But is it true that this great responsibility falls on the government? To confirm this, we can say that people appreciate classical development based on constant and cautious growth, in accordance with the nature that welcomes us. So, in essence, governments must work to ensure that the economic cycle is classical and adjust the course otherwise if things do not go well. Now, since territories and states are often out of the cycle of constant development, the task of governments is to correct the unbalanced path of the economy. With the singular result that often the short duration of governments in office does not allow them to reap the results of the correction that takes a long time to implement. Ergo, governments that agree to make the necessary reforms may suffer the thankless fate of a premature fall. The prize attributed by citizens to good government therefore risks rewarding another government that succeeds the previous one, which, like the "cuckoo", benefits from the rebalancing results started by the previous one in office. Let us therefore recall both the experience of the United States where the President with executive powers appointed by the citizens holds office for four years. That is, an appropriate and necessary time to implement the policy proposed to the electorate. Let us also recall the Anglo-Saxon experience based on two parties that occupy the right or left of Parliament; a bipartisanship that reproduces the behavior of the electorate that always decides in a bipartisan way, divided between majority and minority. Just to say that the difficulties of democratic regimes that multiply parties in an attempt to better respond to the needs of the electorate, could be mistaken. Because by operating in this way, the bipolar character of the electorate, which is always divided between majority and minority, is separated from the political parties that instead tend to multiply. This does not resolve the issue of the relationship of trust between voters and elected officials but rather complicates the issue of the relationship between voters and elected officials, as documented by the reduced turnout of citizens at electoral sessions. To alleviate the discomfort of political relations, it can be suggested to submit to a popular referendum all initiatives of the ruling party that are significant in terms of security, economy and foreign relations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.006

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicInternational Development and AidFrench-language works237,207