MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1577491987 · doi:10.3138/topia.30-31.17

Imagined Economies: Austerity and the Moral Economy of Fairness’

2014· article· en· W1577491987 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAusterityMoral economyGovernment (linguistics)EconomyEconomicsTRACE (psycholinguistics)PoliticsPolitical economyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article I aim to accomplish three things: first, I wish to explore the case for taking imagined economies seriously; second, I want to examine the austerity politics and policies of the U.K. Coalition government as one particular site of economic imagining; third, I will use this example to trace some of the ways in which imagined economies imply other relationships and orderings, not least of which is what E. P. Thompson (1963) called “moral economy.” I end by claiming that imagined economies need to be analyzed conjuncturally.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.053
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207