Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Global South, the restrictive realities with which the Left contends are typically more numerous and onerous than those encountered by European socialists in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For instance, in The Great Transformation , with its European and specifically British focus, Karl Polanyi could take for granted certain societal features and potential remedies that his counterparts in the Global South must treat as problematical. Polanyi could assume effective states able to maintain order and implement complex policies, class-divided but fairly cohesive societies, strong and autonomous organizations of the subaltern classes (especially labor), a lengthy democratic tradition, the rule of law, and national economies that not only would be shielded from volatile capital flows but also yielded sizable fiscal resources for redistribution. Some or all of these conditions do not obtain in the developing world, depending on the country. In addition, Polanyi might retain confidence until his death in 1964 that a form of democratic planning could replace market societies and maximize freedom. But we are much more aware today of the limitations and dangers of central planning. Even modern notions of “participatory” and decentralized planning are probably doomed to failure (except at the local level). But this recognition presents yet another dilemma. On the one hand, markets now appear indispensable in complex, globally integrated economies. On the other hand, markets are cultural as well as economic institutions. The market’s ever deeper penetration of societies breeds an individualistic, consumerist mentality that is inimical to the solidarity principles associated with the Left. Dealing with this contradictory reality involves difficult choices.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".