Book reviews The Dragon and the Elephant: Agricultural and Rural Reforms in China and India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last few years, there has been a flurry of books and papers referring to China and India – the two ‘emerging economies ’ – as the Dragon and the Elephant respectively. The edited book under review is one of the latest in the Dragon-Elephant series, and it attempts to apply the above comparative implication to the agricultural sectors in these two countries. The preface begins with the statement that between 1978 and 2005, China’s per capita income overtook India’s at such a rapid pace that it was double that of India’s in 2005. This transformation is attributed to ‘a quarter of a century of reforms’. After 1978, China is argued to have reformed its agricul-ture by moving into the household responsibility system in land use, liberal-izing agricultural prices and creating a free market for agricultural products. As a result, China’s rural poverty fell from 33 to 11 percent between 1978 and 1984. On the other hand, even after a series of reform measures beginning from 1991, India’s agricultural growth has fallen compared to the 1980s, and its record in reducing rural poverty is poorer than China’s. The
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".