MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574174824

ON LIMITING THE DOMAIN OF INEQUALITY: THE LEGACY OF JAMES TOBIN

2003· article· en· W1574174824 on OpenAlexaff
Robert W. Dimand

Bibliographic record

VenueEastern Economic Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyPoliticsInequalityLimitingEconomicsRedistribution (election)Distribution (mathematics)Development economicsDemographic economicsPolitical sciencePolitical economyEconomic growthLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Keynesian macroeconomist James Tobin presented an ambitious program for social policy, sketched in the titles of "It Can be Done! Conquering Poverty in the US by 1976" (1967), "On Limiting the Domain of Inequality" (1970), "On Improving the Economic Status of the Negro" (1965), and "Raising the Incomes of the Poor" (1968). Tobin advocated means-tested cash transfers (negative income tax), to reduce poverty without interfering with market determination of relative prices (a position shared with Milton Friedman), paired with "non-market egalitarian distributions of commodities essential to life and citizenship" (education, food stamps, basic housing). The latter position contrasted with Friedman's Chicago school approach. Tobin's message continues to be relevant for reduction of poverty and inequality. Tobin's approach is contrasted with the neo-conservative analysis of the causes of poverty (exemplified by Herrnstein and Murray, but going back to Senior and Chadwick's Poor Law Report of 1834) that has been reflected in "the end of welfare as we know it".

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.038
Scholarly communication0.0070.013
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEastern Economic JournalSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207