MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

‘Critical’ Political Economy, Historical Materialism and Adam Morton

2007· article· en· W2092646050 on OpenAlexaff
Randall Germain

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Economy and Marxism
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistorical materialismMarxist philosophyPoliticsCapitalismClass conflictMaterialismHistoriographySociologyPrivilege (computing)Critical theoryIdealismClass analysisEpistemologySocial scienceLawPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to Adam Morton's survey of ‘critical’ IPE in the January 2006 issue of this journal, I argue that we should resist the call to privilege the question of class struggle when considering the political economy of world order. This question, although not unimportant, draws upon an overly narrow and austere conception of historical materialism. Instead, I consider a more fulsome – but decidedly non-Marxist – tradition of historical materialism in order to move beyond the monological tendency that continues to mar much Marxist historiography, especially when the question of class struggle is elevated as the principal lens through which our understanding of capitalism is organised. I do this by considering the importance of historical idealism in the work of Robert W. Cox, a key interlocutor of much so-called ‘critical’ IPE. Although I agree with Morton that class struggle should not be effaced, I make the counter-claim that understanding the political economy of world order demands an attention to the formation of collective human subjectivities if we are adequately to grasp its contemporary dynamics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.035
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoliticsSame topicPolitical Economy and MarxismFrench-language works237,207