Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Limits of Protectionism: Building Coalitions for Free Trade, Michael Lusztig, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2004, pp. xi, 272. As the title suggests, Michael Lusztig offers a non-apologetic endorsement of liberal trade, coalition building, and the limitations of protectionism and rent seeking. Specifically, he argues that “flexible” rent seekers have a better opportunity to prosper than “inflexible” rent seekers. The goal, therefore, is for governments to reduce rents below a specific threshold to force sectoral interests to successfully adjust to or exit the market. Strategies include the big bang approach, divide and conquer, iteration, and the path of least resistance. Catalysts for change are periods of economic crisis, international obligations, and strategic considerations in which reform is linked to potential electoral success. Ultimately, in Lusztig's opinion, crisis and mandated international change offer the best opportunities for rent reduction, at least in terms of limited political backlash.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".