Constructivism and Evolutionism: The Tactic of Government’s Behavior in the Institutional Transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of institutional transition was deeply influenced by the government’s behavior, which is the fundamental element in institutional transition analysis. The origin of government’s different behavior comes from philosophy and two conventions in economics. The rationalism leads to constructivism and the empiricism leads to evolutionism, these conventions in economics cause different government’s behavior in the institutional transition. After analyzing these differences, we make a conclusion that the government should pay attention to special initial conditions and compromise two conventions in economics, and then select appropriate tactic for the regional economic development. Key words: Constructivism, Evolutionism, Institutional transition, Government’s behavior Resume: Le processus de transition institutionnelle a ete profondement influencee par le comportement du gouvernement, qui est un element fondamental dans l’analyse de la transition institutionnelle. L’origine des comportements differents du gouvernement reside dans la philosophie et deux conventions economiques. Le rationalisme conduit au constructivisme et l’empirisme a l’evolutionnisme. Ces conventions de l’economie entrainent les comportements gouvernementaux differents dans la transition institutionnelle. Apres l’analyse de ces differences, on arrive a la conclusion que le gouvernement devrait preter attention aux conditions speciales initiales et faire un compromis pour les deux conventions economiques, et puis choisir la tactique appropriee du developpement economique regional. Mots-Cles: constructivisme, evolutionnisme, transition institutionnelle, comportement gouvernemental
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".