Bibliographic record
Abstract
intRoduCtionMany political economists have tended to view the Global Financial Crisis as a turning-point, leading us out of neoliberalism and into a more regulated form of capitalism (Gamble, 2009;Altvater, 2009;Wade, 2008). 2 The fact that even financial elites felt that insufficient regulatory constraints might have been a factor in the making of the crisis was taken as indicating the demise of free-market dogmas.Further confirmation of this diagnosis came in the form of the massive public interventions in the wake of the crisis, which ran counter to all the core tenets of neoliberalism.Such arguments often follow the logic of a Polanyian conceptual framework, according to which market expansion will generate contradictions that trigger a double movement whereby society organizes to re-impose its values on the market's commodification logic.In Polanyian metaphors, after several decades of market 'disembedding' we are potentially witnessing a new phase of regulatory're-embedding'.By now, this optimism has been tempered somewhat: it has become clear that the public interventions in the wake of the crisis represent some of the most inegalitarian uses to which state power has ever been put-that is to say, that massive amounts of public funds have shielded financial elites from experiencing the consequences of bad bets while ordinary people are suffering the full effects of the crisis, including unprecedented rates of eviction and unemployment.Yet what persists is the notion that the crisis and the governmental responses it triggered 1 Martijn Konings is Lecturer in Political Economy at the University of Sydney (Sydney, Australia) and has published widely on American and global finance.His current research interests relate to the changing ways in which households are connected to financial institutions, shifts in pension funds' investment strategies since the onset of the subprime crisis, and the need for political economy to enrich its understanding of core economic categories by drawing on perspectives in social psychology and psychoanalysis.He recently edited The Great Credit Crash and American Empire and the Political Economy of Global Finance (with Leo Panitch).He can be reached at:
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".