MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984682810 · doi:10.1177/0270467608328705

The Antieconomy Hypothesis (Part 1)

2009· article· en· W1984682810 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

VenueBulletin of Science Technology & Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Academic Research Areas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobeGoods and servicesHarmEconomicsProduction (economics)Distribution (mathematics)Market economyEconomyBusinessPolitical scienceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article attempts to make some sense of what is happening to the role of money and the economy in our lives and in our communities. It shows that the picture provided by the discipline of economics makes no sense at all. Corporations and national economies have become wealth extractors as opposed to wealth creators. Only about 3% of daily financial flows around the globe have any meaningful connection to the production and distribution of goods and services or to direct productive investments. Free trade is restricted to the flows of goods and services, but it is forced trade to people and communities. Such flows ought to serve them, but under free trade they are permitted to do more harm than good. These developments have transformed the role of money and the economy into wealth extraction or what may be regarded as antimoney and an antieconomy. The implications are far reaching, and require urgent attention if the present human, social, and environmental crises are not to be intensified.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.024
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.272 · 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