Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chapters of this collection were originally presented at a conference on "Norms, Beliefs, and Institutions of Capitalism: Celebrating Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" held at Cornell University in October 2004 to mark the 100th anniversary of The Protestant Ethic.What unites them, according to the editors, is that they "are all concerned with solving the mystery of economic growth in one way or another" while seeking to overcome the limitations of both the pure neoclassical approach and the amended institutionalist version of Douglass North et al.What they take from Weber in particular is the need to include "values, attitudes, and norms" (p.9) to account for economic growth.Luckily, however, not many of the contributors to the volume limit themselves to reiterating this tired Parsonsian reception of Weber.Swedberg invokes de Tocqueville's observations about the "restiveness," "audacity," materialism and respect for work that characterized the citizens of 19th Century America to argue that norms and ideas are at least as important as institutions and organizations in explaining the success of early capitalism.Barnaby Marsh argues for the importance of including "spiritual capital," i.e., "the outlooks, ideals, and subjective beliefs held by the individual" (p.177) in our explanations since, as he tries to show through a series of sometimes rather trite and well-worn examples (e.g., self-fulfilling prophecies, markets and currency requiring trust, etc.), these often matter a great deal in achieving economic success.Point taken, especially in the current, post-subprime era, but what do we do with it?Neither Marsh nor Swedberg provides any useful suggestions as to how we might incorporate these subjective states into our existing explanatory strategies.Happily, most other contributors present their own arguments and ideas, either not bothering to pay much attention to the Weber of "values, attitudes and norms" at all or only doing so e contrario.Not coincidentally, these are the more stimulating and interesting contributions to this volume.Thus, Russell Hardin, actually taking his cue from some of Weber's less often noted remarks in The Protestant Ethic, insists that not
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.009 |
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".