Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since there is a relatively large number of publications on the Hungarian economic reform—generally known as the New Economic Mechanism—the purpose of this paper is not so much to present the different aspects of the system as to show both the problems and results which one can identify seven years after its adoption. At the end of 1973, the State increased its control of the economy. We try to demonstrate that in so doing the national authorities did not mean to reopen the question of the "liberalization" of the economy, but above all wanted to make some reajustments in the economic policy in view of the effects of the world crisis on prices and wage policy. The difficulties Hungary has recently known have been attributed to market-socialism by orthodox socialists who are opposed to this policy. On the other hand some of the architects of the N.E.M. maintain that the present model does not fully correspond to market socialism. One must admit that indeed many elements of the economic problems (inflation, income inequalities, development of monopolistic power) that can be identified in Hungary are linked with the disadvantages of a decentralized socialist model. However, in spite of these problems the achievements of the Hungarian economy are worthy of mention. The economic authorities do not conceal their price at having exceeded the forecasts of the 1971-1976 five year Plan. Even if, as several writers maintain, the introduction of the market is not a panacea for all the flaws of socialism in general, Hungary through its past experience and present endeavours provides valuable information to all those interested in studying a synthesis of planning and the market.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".