MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Elementos para una economía política del republicanismo: un análisis crítico de la renta básica de Alaska

2016· article· es· W1898816785 on OpenAlexaff
David Casassas, Jürgen De Wispelaere

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Internacional de Pensamiento Político · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En este artículo presentamos las ideas básicas que subyacen a la teoría política republicana y establecemos una línea de demarcación entre la perspectiva republicana y el libertarianismo de izquierdas, el cual tiene en la renta básica de Alaska su plasmación institucional más natural e inmediata. A partir de ahí, abordamos tres conjuntos de problemas que presenta el modelo de Alaska: la falta de una base económica sustancial, la falta de frenos a la acumulación de poder económico privado y la falta de mecanismos de control democrático sobre los procesos de extracción, imposición tributaria y distribución de los recursos naturales. Así, para que el republicanismo pueda hacerlo suyo, el modelo de Alaska debe ser sometido a importantes enmiendas y modificaciones que tienen que ver tanto con su naturaleza intrínseca como con el contexto institucional en el que opera. De este modo, concluimos sosteniendo que, aun cuando el modelo de Alaska puede ser compatible con la perspectiva republicana en un sentido débil, los republicanos deben proceder con cautela a la hora de defender el modelo en un sentido fuerte.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Internacional de Pensamiento Político→Same topicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth→French-language works237,207→