Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis la parution, en 1950, du célèbre article d'Armen Alchian, il est devenu assez fréquent d'invoquer la sélection naturelle pour appuyer certaines conclusions de l'économie néoclassique. Toute sélection n'étant toutefois pas de type « darwinien », il importe de bien distinguer les arguments qui invoquent la sélection naturelle au sens strict et les arguments crypto-téléologiques qui s'apparenteraientplutôt à un évolutionnisme de type lamarckien. A l'aide de quelques exemples fictifs, dont deux sont empruntés à un essai méthodologique de Milton Friedman de 1953, il est soutenu que les économistes doivent choisir entre des explications prétendument fondées sur la sélection naturelle et des explications fondées sur le principe de rationalité. Plus généralement, il est montré en conclusion, à l'aide de deux exemples supplémentaires, que les explications reposant sur des mécanismes impersonnels et celles reposant sur des activités intentionnelles ne peuvent être invoquées concurremment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".