MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2005· article· en· W2137798005 on OpenAlexaffabout
Trevor J. Barnes, Roger Hayter

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGrowth and ChangeSame topicEconomic Theory and InstitutionsFrench-language works237,207