Where is the “Global South” located in scientific research?
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
Although the term “Global South” has been increasingly invoked by heads of State as a call for enhanced multilateralism and institutional reform, its academic conceptualization remains underdeveloped. Therefore, we investigate how and where scientific knowledge about the Global South is produced, using a meta-analysis of around 17,000 articles [1994–2024] indexed in Scopus database. The paper shows that authors and funding are predominantly from Global North institutions, particularly the United States. However, rising powers are increasingly active contributors, notably South Africa, India, China and Brazil. The most frequent research topics include globalization, COVID-19, climate change, gender issues, neoliberalism, decolonization and sustainability. The results also reveal the centrality of Africa in the debate, and the underrepresentation of Global South institutions in leading journals. The conclusion calls for more scientific collaboration to improve visibility of knowledge produced in the Global South institutions and suggests that ESG may be a key player.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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