MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047457480 · doi:10.1177/0305829808097649

Embedded Liberalism in Counterpoint: Reading Woody Guthrie's Reciprocal Economy

2008· article· en· W2047457480 on OpenAlexaff
Rob Aitken

Bibliographic record

VenueMillennium Journal of International Studies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterpointLiberalismSociologyAestheticsCultural analysisPoliticsNarrativeMainstreamLiteratureLawSocial sciencePolitical sciencePhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

`Culture' and cultural analysis have recently become important to our understanding of world politics and international studies. Cultural analysis has been less central, however, to work in International Political Economy (IPE). This article is an experiment in thinking through the possibilities of one cultural methodology — contrapuntal analysis — and the potential it might have in opening up discussions of cultural analysis in IPE. To explore these possibilities, this article works though a cultural reading of `embedded liberalism'; a moment key to founding narratives in both critical and mainstream strands of IPE. The article uses a strategy of counterpoint — the attempt to place objects in relational relief in order to stress atonal contrast — as a way to highlight `other' stories of embedded liberalism. To make this case, the article retells the story of Woody Guthrie's conception of debt as a relational practice of belonging. Guthrie's alternative conception of finance, formulated in the 1940s, can, I argue, help place our conventional stories of embedded liberalism in counterpoint. This is a critical gesture, moreover, which might also help provoke more relational analyses of our own globalised and neo-liberal present.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMillennium Journal of International StudiesSame topicPolitical and Economic history of UK and USFrench-language works237,207