MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Individualism and Government Intervention: Is it a paradox?

2009· article· en· W2140767153 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mei Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Institutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndividualismGovernment (linguistics)InstitutionEconomic interventionismFree marketHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individualism is one of the most fundamental values, which helps to build the United States. It is a commitment to personal initiative, self-reliance and material accumulation. The principle upholds the superiority of free-market economic system and claims that individuals rather than any institution or group should be the core of society. Consequently, the government is traditionally expected to intervene in social life as little as possible. However, the government's involvement keeps expanding ever since the Gr2eat Depression, and the tendency seems strong. At present, there is hardly any aspect of social life left without government regulation. This paper will focus on one question: whether the expansion of government is a paradox to the underlying spirit of individualism. It concludes that the paradox does not exist. The expansion of government intervention is an inevitable result of social development and the inherent weakness of individualism. It is complementary to individualism rather than paradoxical. Key Words: individualism, Social Contract, free-market economy, government intervention. Resume: L’individualism est une value les plus fundamentaux, qui l’aide a l’establir Les Etats-unis. C’est une commitement a l’initiative personalle, reliance sur soi, et accumulation material. Cette principle emphasie la superiorite de la systeme economique de free-market et claime qu’il fait les individueux, nons auquel institution ou groupe, sont le core de la societe. Consequentment, le gouvernement est expecte traditionallement a intervener en livre sociale le plus moins le plus possiblement. Mais, l’invovelment de gouvernement expande aisin que la Great Depression, et la tendencie est de plus en plus evidente. Maintenent, il n’y a pas une aspect de la livre sociale sons la regulation de gouvernement. Cette article centre sur une question: si l’expansion de gouvernement est une paradoxie au spirit de l’individualism. Elle conclude que cette paradoxie ne existe pas. L’expansion de gouvernement est une result inevitable de la progress sociale et la demerit inherete de l’individualism. Il est complementaire, nons pas paradoxicale, a l’individualism. Mots-cles: L’individualism, contract social, economie de free-market, l’intervention de

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.020
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicEconomic Theory and InstitutionsFrench-language works237,207