Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that the theoretical contributions of Karl Polanyi can provide a compelling foundation for the analysis of community development (CD) processes and cases. Through a review of the international theoretical and empirical literature in CD the paper demonstrates that CD scholars work with concepts such as social solidarity, agency, self-help and mutual help, social capital, and reciprocity, that can be effectively understood in Polanyian terms. CD scholars explain the emergence of CD as a response to “modernization” where communities seek to mitigate the impacts of modernization while also taking advantage of its promises to improve communities and livelihoods. Also CD normative actions are explained in terms of building – and rebuilding – social capital in response to the erosion of communities caused by modern forces such as the nation-state and industrial capitalism. CD scholars borrow from social analysts such as Jurgen Habermas, Paulo Freire, and Anthony Giddens to structure their explanatory and normative writing. But Polanyi is notably absent as a conceptual source in the CD literature. We argue that Polanyian concepts of the double movement, social disembeddedness, reciprocity institutions, and fictitious commodities can offer conceptual benefits to CD studies. For instance, Polanyi’s faculty for coherently defending the social and cultural spheres by using the language of institutional economics provides new perspectives that can induce new analyses of CD processes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".