RADICALISM VERSUS GRADUALISM: AN ANALYTICAL SURVEY OF THE TRANSITION STRATEGY DEBATE
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Academic debate on a transition strategy for former socialist economies continues even a quarter century after the collapse of the communism in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In this paper, through an analytical survey of 137 preceding studies, we present an overall picture of the debate and examine the relationship between the debate attitudes and the literature attributes in related studies. We found that the radicalists maintain a consistent debate attitude from the viewpoints of time speed and policy sequence of economic transition, while the debate attitude of the gradualists is more diversified. We also found that there is another group of researchers that stays within the framework of the radicalism‐versus‐gradualism debate while at the same time keeping at arm's length from both the radicalists and the gradualists. In addition, our regression estimation of qualitative selection models provides interesting findings on the relationship between the debate attitudes and the literature attributes.
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 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 | 0.011 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it