MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153257211 · doi:10.1017/s0008423906219966

The Moral Ecology of Markets: Assessing Claims about Markets and Justice

2006· article· en· W2153257211 on OpenAlexaff
Jan Narveson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Institutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoralityEconomic JusticeTask (project management)Law and economicsEconomicsSociologyLawPolitical scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Moral Ecology of Markets: Assessing Claims about Markets and Justice , Daniel K. Finn, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. ix, 169. There is a subtitle to this book: “Assessing Claims about Markets and Justice.” Its aim is not to settle the question of how just markets are, but rather to identify the framework within which the morality of markets can be profitably discussed. In the opening chapter, he takes to task some celebrated economists who, he thinks, try to defend markets without moral judgment. We can certainly agree that if they really thought they were doing that, their task was hopeless. But more likely they felt their moral premises were uncontroversial.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicEconomic Theory and InstitutionsFrench-language works237,207