Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to introduce the “Radical economics” issue in International Journal of Social Economics. Design/methodology/approach “Radical economics” has two basic meanings. One employs the basic sense of “radical”, whatever goes to the roots of the matter. The other common meaning of radical has to do with whatever diverges from the orthodoxy of the time. This issue examines radical economics in both senses. Findings The recent world economic crisis raises basic questions about economic thought. Complex mathematical formulae led banks to take what proved to be unwarranted risks. Behind them is a tendency to regard economics as a self‐contained discipline. Complexities which sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists and historians have done something to unravel are sometimes simply ignored. The philosophical bases of the economic theories in circulation are often more than two centuries old. But some important ideas from the past have been forgotten, the distinction between wealth and riches is one. Social change also plays a part in the problems. Community friendly capitalism, ridiculed and attacked by some economists, has faded. At a deeper level the tendency for the rich to get much richer while the poorest people in the world are only slightly better off has produced more instability and uncertainty, which economists have not successfully addressed. Practical implications It is hoped readers will join in these ongoing explorations. Social implications The recent economic crisis has been importantly a crisis of confidence. Economic studies, which offer hope for change, can be an element in increasing confidence. Originality/value The problem posed by the constant expansion necessitated in the ordinary way the need to invest profits may threaten the sustainability of life on our planet and no immediately available economic theory seems to address this. This issue begins to raise the essential questions, with hopes of continuing the discussion.
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 | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".