Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of the paper is to estimate the importance of the contribution of Sismondi's economic analysis to the classical economic theory. To do this, the theoretical framework and the main concepts of the latter approach are first described. Three main themes allow us to distinguish the classical theory between the other ones: its conception of time and economic evolution, its apprehension of the different categories of economic agents and its analysis of wealth and prices. The paper deals with each theme and analyses its contents and place in Sismondi's work. The study of the relation between time and economie evolution allows the introduction of uncertainty in the perfect foresight classical scheme. As far as the notion of economic agent is concerned, Sismondi specified the classical conception of social classes in capitalism. Finally, in his treatment of wealth and prices, Sismondi emphasizes the importance of market forces and gluts. The conclusions of the paper are the following: Sismondi's approach and classical analysis cannot be interpreted as inconsistent; moreover, Sismondi can be considered both as Ricardo's successor and as Keynes' predecessor.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".