Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the time of his death in 1790, Adam Smith, the former professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow, had begun to achieve international prominence as the author of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). In this masterpiece, Mandeville's name appears only once in a critical aside about foreign trade, and Smith's frequent oblique allusions to The Fable would have been apparent only to those colleagues together with whom Smith confronted Mandeville's challenge to the moral legitimacy of commercial society. When considering Smith's deliberate effacement of The Fable 's importance for his analysis of commercial modernity — a characteristic reticence, evident with regard to almost all of his other intellectual debts — it is tempting to assume that he was simply following in the footsteps of Condillac and Helvétius, who plausibly suspected that an open acknowledgement of Mandeville would prevent their own work from receiving a proper hearing. Marx, probably unaware that Dugald Stewart, Smith's former pupil and successor at Glasgow, had already revealed these connections, seems to have held this view, noting with some relish in his discussion of the division of labor in Capital that [t]he famous passage [on the division of labor in Book I.i of The Wealth of Nations ] … which begins with the words, “Observe the accommodation of the most common artificer or day-labourer in a civilised and thriving country,” etc., and then proceeds to depict what an enormous number and variety of industries contribute to the satisfaction of the needs of the ordinary worker, is copied almost word for word from the “Remarks” added by B. de Mandeville to his Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Public Benefits .
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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.
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".