MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044550001 · doi:10.1017/s153759270590025x

Egalitarian Capitalism: Jobs, Incomes and Growth in Affluent Countries

2005· article· en· W2044550001 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Hall

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Politics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapitalismEconomicsEarningsInequalityGlobalizationWageEconomic inequalityWelfare stateWelfareDevelopment economicsLabour economicsPolitical scienceMarket economyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Egalitarian Capitalism: Jobs, Incomes and Growth in Affluent Countries. By Lane Kenworthy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004. 222p. $32.50. Two decades of rising wage and household earnings inequality in the world's wealthiest nations make the guiding question of Lane Kenworthy's book both timely and important: “[M]ust we give up on the vision of a dynamic and productive yet relatively egalitarian form of capitalism?” (p. 1). To answer this question, Kenworthy presents a careful comparative analysis of income inequality in the countries of northwestern Europe, North America, and Australia during the 1980s and 1990s. He shows that there is not necessarily a trade-off between equality and income growth, although there may be a trade-off between equality and some categories of employment growth. Hence, he argues that with an updated, pro-employment version of the welfare state, we need not give into growing disparity in advanced capitalist societies. Whether this will be desired by all and achieved remains to be seen; nevertheless, the book is an important antidote to the “there is no alternative” type of thinking that pervades much contemporary discourse on economic globalization.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations124
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on PoliticsSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207