2025: Two Histories of Economic Growth Summary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is the year 2025. Integration with the world economy in an increasingly competitive environment has advanced by another 25 years. For about two decades Poland has been a member of the European Union, which now generates greater output than the U.S. Does Poland's contribution to global GDP exceed 1 percent? Does our share in world trade approach 2 percent? Has per capita GDP on PPP basis risen above 30,000 U.S. dollars – the level that the European Union and the U.S. attained, on the average, a quarter of a century ago? All this is possible, as long as we keep doubling our national income every 12 years over the first quarter of the 21st century. Or could it be that Poland’s share in world output A.D. 2025 stands at a paltry 0.7–0.8 percent and is not much greater than a generation ago? That the volume of our foreign trade remains similarly disappointing? That economic growth oscillating at about 3 percent a year has allowed PPP-adjusted GDP merely to double and reach some 15,000 dollars – a level which Slovenia exceeded already in 2001? Either scenario is possible. Which one will become a reality depends on the development strategy, which must take into account the opportunities and threats faced by
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.006 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".