5 Development Beyond the Millennium Development Goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
he Millennium Development Goals are of central concern to the international community. The year 2005 is a year of benchmarks for the Millennium Development Goals – the questions commonly asked are, are we on target? Will the world achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015? One can make a distinction between the achievability versus the adequacy of the MDGs. It seems to me that the adequacy question needs to be answered before the achievability question. So I would like to address the issue of adequacy of the MDGs first and then briefly assess the likelihood of achieving the MDGs by 2015. Let me say by way of preamble that analysis of the MDGs has been a great preoccupation for the North-South Institute. We brought out three publications in 2005 that deal with the MDGs. One is about Canada’s international policy, the second is our annual flagship publication: the Canadian Development Report, which emerged in September just before the Millennium Review Summit, and the third
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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; 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".