MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077078207 · doi:10.1080/02692171.2014.983732

The economist’s oath: a review Essay

2014· review· en· W2077078207 on OpenAlexaff
Sheila Dow

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Applied Economics · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Institutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOathMainstreamSubject (documents)Positive economicsSociologyMainstream economicsPresentation (obstetrics)EconomicsEpistemologySocial scienceLawApplied economicsPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

George DeMartino’s 2011 monograph, The Economist’s Oath: On the Need for and Content of Professional Economic Ethics, provides an excellent basis for the development of a discourse on the ethics of economists. This review focuses on the way in which mainstream economists’ arguments against consideration of ethics follow from their presentation of economics as a purely technical subject, and the implication that this pretense itself is unethical. The complexity of ethical issues within a pluralist approach to economics is explored, ranging from the institutional environment within which economists practice to epistemological questions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.245 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Applied EconomicsSame topicEconomic Theory and InstitutionsFrench-language works237,207