Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the current climate of rapacious neo‐liberal economic expansion and increasingly globalized public protest, the social economy tradition has again emerged as an important nodal point for practical and theoretical socio‐economic debate and action. However, as recent scholarship makes clear, there is no clear consensus on what this phrase means or the social and political role that this sector of society should play, given current conditions. This paper suggests an answer to both of these questions by focusing on and reworking the “radical/Utopian” stream of theorizing within the social economy discourse. It concludes that, unless the social economy movement recognizes the importance of reintegrating a “life‐world” politics into its economic vision, it will increasingly be used by government as the low‐ or no‐cost alternative to state‐funded social welfare. If this is allowed to happen the social economy will be relegated to an unofficial support/monitoring branch of government/neo‐liberal economic restructuring and, consequently, it will perpetuate the conditions which it has always been envisioned to challenge.
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 | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".