Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the relationship that prevails between the state, economics, and freedom according to the works of Friedrich Hayek and Karl Polanyi. Hayek, who was one of the most important contributors to the development of the modern market economy and liberalism, formulated a concept of freedom that includes economic and negative freedom as significant components; his objective was to demonstrate the superiority of liberal capitalist societies over all other forms of organizing a society in terms of achieving freedom. Meanwhile, Polanyi, who confronted all forms of totalitarian regimes and argued that a "self-regulating market … was a utopian project," formulated a concept of freedom that rejected the self-regulating mechanism of the market economy as a component of freedom; he supported regulated markets and included moral, ethical, and social values among the key components required for the realization of freedom. This paper shows that Hayek failed to foresee the destructive social consequences and dehumanizing aspects of modern market capitalism, and promoted the free market economy as a guardian of freedom primarily for its instrumental value. Conversely, Polanyi was able to anticipate the modern market economy's potential to engender disastrous consequences for the whole of humanity and provided an honest and objective analysis of the modern market system that is indispensable for understanding the dilemmas, issues, and contradictions of 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".