Эффективность взаимодействия «Деловой двадцатки» и «Группы двадцати»
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
Marina Larionova - Dr. of Political Science, Head of International Organisations Research Institute (IORI)of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya, 101000, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail:mlarionova@hse.ruMark Rakhmangulov- Deputy Director of the Global Governance Research Centre of the International Organisations Research Institute (IORI)of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya, 101000, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail:MRakhmangulov@hse.ruAndrei Sakharov- Researcher at the Global Governance Research Centreof the International Organisations Research Institute (IORI) of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, PhD student of the Department of International Affairs of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs of the National Research University Higher School of Economics,101000, 20, Myasnitskaya, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail:agsakharov@hse.ruAndrey Shelepov- Researcher at the Global Governance Research Centreof the International Organisations Research Institute (IORI) of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 101000, 20, Myasnitskaya, Moscow, Russia; E-mail:ashelepov@hse.ruValerie Ganzhela- Graduate of the Master Programme, Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 101000, 20, Myasnitskaya, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail:valerie_ganzhela@mail.ruEkaterina Ivanova- Student of the Faculty of Public Administration of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 101000, 20, Myasnitskaya, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail: bigdeals.hse@gmail.comDina Karakash- Student of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 101000, 20, Myasnitskaya, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail:dina9393@mail.ruAnton Komarov- Student of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 101000, 20, Myasnitskaya, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail:komar94@inbox.ruMaya Kostina- Graduate of the master programme, Department of Public Policy of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 101000, 20, Myasnitskaya, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail: kostina.maya@gmail.comYana Nyrsubina- Student of the International College of Economics and Finance of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 101000, 20, Myasnitskaya, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail:nys0107@gmail.comAlice Prokhorova- Student of the Faculty of Public Administration of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 101000, 20, Myasnitskaya, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail:alicepro@mail.ruPavel Prokopyev - Graduate of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs of the National Research University Higher School of Economics; 101000, 20, Myasnitskaya, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail:pavel.prokopyev@gmail.comSergej Rastoltsev-PhD student of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 117997, 23, Profsouznaya, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail: sergej-ras@yandex.ruAndrei Scriba- PhD student of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 101000, 20, Myasnitskaya, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail:askriba@gmail.comKira Zatzepina- Student of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs of the National Research University Higher School of Economics,101000, 20, Myasnitskaya, Moscow, Russian Federation; E-mail:loskiros.music@gmail.comAnastasya Zhuravleva- Student of the Faculty of Politics of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya, Moscow, Russia 101000; E-mail:anastasiya.zhuravleva93@gmail.comAbstractThe article reviews the progress of G20-B20 engagement since Toronto to St. Petersburg with the objective to identify which mechanisms and areas of cooperation are most effective to ensure continuity of the B20 efforts on the key priorities, the B20 influence on the G20 decision-making and the G20 compliance with commitments related to the B20 priorities. With this objective in mind the study is focused on two dimensions. The first dimension is B20 recommendations influence on G20 deliberation, direction setting and decision making on the basis of analysis of how the B20 specific recommendations are reflected in the G20 documents. The second dimension is B20 influence on the G20 delivery on the pledges made, which is assessed by monitoring the G20 compliance with the B20 related commitments.The authors assess the average level of the B20 recommendations reflection in the G20 documents as considerable, however its dynamics across presidencies is mixed. The average level of G20 members’ compliance on the B20 related commitments is lower than the G20 average score for compliance with general non B20 focused commitments. It can be explained by a shorter monitoring period and by the fact that the B20 related commitments are more specific. Key areas where cooperation can be most effective (financial regulation, employment, investments, trade) have been identified. Key factors of success have been revealed. The analysis shows that a high level of B20 recommendations’ inclusion into the G20 documents and actions does not guarantee subsequent implementation of the commitments made. The B20 should ensure continuity on their priority recommendations in the dialogue with the G20 and engage in the follow up process by more actively participating in the G20 agreed initiatives and projects at the national and global levels.Progress on the B20 related commitment should be reviewed and made public for each summit. It can help to increase the level of effectiveness of B20 and G20 engagement.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.112 | 0.047 |
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