Bibliographic record
Abstract
A physicist would be mocked for proclaiming that only one of the four subatomic forces really mattered. A chemist would be shunned for claiming that only covalent bonds should be studied. And a physiologist would be laughed at for arguing that only the digestive system determines an organism's wellbeing and development. But social scientists can still be applauded (as several Nobel Laureates do in the frontmatter of this book) for arguing that there is only one predominant cause of economic growth, and for actively dismissing all alternative explanations. This is not to say that the authors' core arguments lack merit. Many social sciences have in recent decades appreciated the importance of institutions that give people confidence, freedom, and incentives to invest and exchange. And many scholars have noted that this type of economic institution is more likely to be found in societies with political institutions that are characterized also by freedoms and rights and pluralism. Readers of this journal may especially appreciate the argument in the early chapters that it was low population densities that encouraged "inclusive" political and economic institutions in what would become the United States, whereas higher population densities (coupled with the resources to be extracted from these populations) encouraged elitist "extractive" institutions across much of Latin America. (Population is largely ignored in other case studies.)
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".