MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095340162 · doi:10.1177/0169796x14525528

What Is Development? What Is Progress? The Social Science and Humanities of Utopia and Futurology

2014· article· en· W2095340162 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Developing Societies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Economy and Marxism
Canadian institutionsInternational Development Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionUtopiaTabooModernization theoryConstructiveGlobalizationSociologySocial scienceField (mathematics)Social changeHumanitiesPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsProcess (computing)PhilosophyLawAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of “modernization” or “development” in contemporary globalization has included an assault on imagination, such that the very idea of offering alternative visions seems to be taboo. This article advocates for a constructive return to alternative models of human and social development based on realistic assumptions, human hopes, and measures of progress in both social sciences and humanities, to rejuvenate what has become a dying, impoverished, and stultifying, if not useless area of study. The article uses two relatively recent books with alternative examinations of utopia – one on early Russian science fiction and one from the literature of architecture and gender – as springboards for a discussion of what is wrong and what can be changed in the field of development studies.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.281 · 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