Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) now form one of the world’s most important economic blocs, representing more than one quarter of global GDP, and 42 per cent of the world’s population. Significantly, the BRICS have seen their economic influence increase over the past decades, as drivers of global growth, trade and investment. Since Jim O’Neil created the acronym BRIC, in 2001, the grouping has both expanded, and deepened its collaboration. In 2011, South Africa joined, to create the BRICS economies. Although the bloc is an informal arrangement, with no charter, it has nonetheless developed a more institutional character, both through a high level of political interaction (e.g. annual summits) and the creation of economic institutions such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA). Foreign investment has played an important role in the growth of BRICS economies since 2001, with annual FDI inflows to the bloc more than quadrupling from 2001 to 2021 and contributing significantly to gross fixed capital formation. The growth in FDI inflows to the BRICS was very strong in the first decade, but has remained relatively flat since 2011, against a global backdrop of negative growth of FDI flows over the decade. To deal with the challenging global investment environment, and also in response to the need to leverage foreign investment for sustainable development, the BRICS economies continued moving in the general direction of a more open and supportive investment policy environment. Looking ahead, the potential for intra-BRICS investment remains promising. However, more collaboration will be required to make investment a key driver of economic cooperation among the BRICS, and to bring more benefits for sustainable and inclusive economic development in the bloc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".