Bibliographic record
Abstract
All are keeping a sharp look-out in front, but none suspects that the danger may be creeping up from behind. This shows how real the island was. J. M. Barrie, Peter Pan Children are often thought to be peculiarly honest – witness the story of “The Emperor's New Clothes.” My title comes from a group of my academic children: first-year graduate students. I teach a mandatory class in macroeconomic theory to graduate students in both an economics department and an agricultural economics department. The students in agricultural economics are typically more interested in crop patterns or natural resources – relentlessly microeconomic topics – than in unemployment, GDP growth, or interest rates. Each year at least one student, who I assume comes from the agricultural economics department, writes on the anonymous class evaluation something like this: “If macro- economics were real economics – which it is not! – this would have been a good class.” What is one to say to the honest and piercing doubts of an academic child? The idea that macroeconomics stands in need of a microfoundational base is a commonplace among economists. I shall argue that what motivates this belief are principally ontological concerns, naïvely, but pointedly expressed, in my students' questions about the reality of macroeconomics. I shall argue that ontological reduction of macro- economics to microeconomics is untenable. Thus, while the program of microfoundations may illuminate macroeconomics in various ways, it cannot succeed in its goal of replacing macroeconomics. To begin at the beginning, it might help to define the key terms. “Macroeconomics” is sometimes thought to be the economics of broad aggregates, and “microeconomics” the economics of individual economic actions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".