Bibliographic record
Abstract
An allegorical tale of economic geography’s ‘island life’, and some of its possible futures, is presented. There is much to be gained, it is suggested, from reciprocal intellectual trade with others in the archipelago of heterodox economic studies. Trading exchanges with the continental power that is orthodox economics, however, present special – and apparently growing – problems. It is not simply that the terms of trade are asymmetrical; the transactional relationship itself is beset with epistemological and ontological incompatibilities. The stance of largely indifferent, arm’s length cohabitation, laissez faire et laissez passer, may no longer be an option for economic geography, however. The renewed and active interest among the new breed of ‘geographical economists’ in some of the long-buried treasures on economic geography’s island raises the threat, previously experienced by anthropology and sociology, of selective intellectual colonization, if not inundation. Against the cognitive universalism and expansionist predispositions of orthodox theory, the challenge facing economic geography must be to build stronger and more meaningful alliances – indeed, reciprocal exchanges – across the kula rings of heterodox economic studies. Creative analytical, methodological, and political responses to ‘the market’ warrant strategic significance in this regard, within a pluralist, interdisciplinary project of comparative economy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".