MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

No "Greek-Letter Writing": Local Models of Resource Economies

2005· article· en· W2137798005 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueGrowth and Change · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Institutions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)Resource (disambiguation)Context (archaeology)Order (exchange)EconomyGridEconomic systemEconomicsEconomic geographyGeographyPolitical scienceComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In trying to understand resource economies, the article develops the idea of local models. A local model, in contrast to a universal model, is sensitive to the peculiarities of geographical context. Those peculiarities, rather than being reduced to some higher order of logic as in universal models, are kept intact, forming the very basis of understanding. Our approach to local modeling draws specifically on institutional economics. That tradition makes the argument that the economy is shaped by various institutions (not all of which are economic), which are continually changing and which take on different constellations in different places. By setting out a grid of central institutions operating in resource economies, and comparatively using the examples of the forest economies of British Columbia, Canada, North Island, New Zealand, and Tasmania, Australia, the article constructs three local models. Each has the same constituent elements, but how they are related and what eventuates are peculiar to the specific region.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.153 · 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