MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976157411 · doi:10.1177/1473095213510430

The Fourth Coase Theorem: State planning rules and spontaneity in action

2013· article· en· W1976157411 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlanning Theory · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Canadian institutionsNew York Institute of Technology
FundersNew York Institute of Technology
KeywordsCoase theoremState (computer science)Property rightsProperty (philosophy)Action (physics)Mathematical economicsEconomicsLaw and economicsZoningTransaction costPolitical scienceMicroeconomicsComputer scienceLawEpistemologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article elucidates a novel and powerful Fourth Coase Theorem using Coase’s own reasoning and extending the First Coase Theorem. It holds that state rules, which include, but are not limited to, property rights, can enlarge a market. This theorem lends support to state planning insofar as it establishes rules that enable and promote market transactions and illuminates the operation of the market’s spontaneity, subject to constraints. Seven conditions that demarcate the state’s role under this theorem from interventionist planning by edict are specified and illustrated by three well-researched real-life examples, one revealed by Coase and two others involving rights conferred by the state by licensing and zoning for maritime resources and by franchising for ordering land-use transport.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.199 · 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