Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Inspection Panel was created in 1993 \n by the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank to \n receive complaints submitted by people suffering harm \n allegedly caused by World Bank projects. This experience \n provides important lessons for both the Bank and for the \n global development community at large. The Panel therefore \n launched this series of publications to draw the main \n emerging lessons from its caseload. While Panel cases tend \n to highlight challenging projects where things went wrong \n and are not necessarily reflective of the Bank’s entire \n portfolio, the lessons nonetheless are important. This \n exercise is intended to help build the institutional \n knowledge base, enhance accountability, foster better \n results in project outcomes, and, ultimately, contribute to \n more effective development with shared prosperity for all. \n The series is organized around the most recurrent issues in \n Panel investigations. This report, the second in the series, \n covers Panel cases that focused on Indigenous Peoples’ \n issues. Currently, there are approximately 370 million \n self-identified Indigenous Peoples in some 90 countries \n worldwide. They are among the world’s most vulnerable, \n marginalized, and disadvantaged groups. According to the \n World Bank, while Indigenous Peoples own, occupy, or use a \n quarter of the world’s surface area, they safeguard 80 \n percent of its remaining biodiversity, and some of the most \n biologically important lands and waters are intact as a \n result of Indigenous Peoples’ stewardship. Their knowledge \n and expertise on how to adapt, mitigate, and reduce risks \n from climate change and natural disasters are considered \n vital. Adequately responding to these challenges requires \n considering Indigenous Peoples as fundamental stakeholders \n and important partners in the development process. The Bank \n has undertaken several reviews and evaluations of its \n Indigenous Peoples Policy since 1982.The Inspection Panel’s \n mandate covers projects financed by the International Bank \n for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the \n International Development Association (IDA). The Compliance \n Advisor Ombudsman handles complaints related to projects \n financed by the International Finance Corporation and the \n Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. In this report, \n the World Bank (or Bank) refers to IBRD and IDA only.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.043 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".