Bibliographic record
Abstract
History is an uncertain guide to the future. We may say that a strategy that succeeded under a certain set of conditions in the past will lead to similar outcomes in cases with similar conditions today. But, in reality, conditions are never fully the same and are constantly changing: global and national opportunity structures shift, dominant ideas concerning development and the economy rise and fall, technological innovation and political organization transform the balance of class forces, and well-organized progressive parties with far-sighted leadership emerge – or fail to emerge. Politics is the art of the possible, but it is never entirely clear in advance what constitutes the realm of the possible. Leadership and political vision are thus critical determinants of success. Historical experience is more useful in offering warnings about what to avoid than “lessons” for successful action. The debacles of socialism and social democracy in the twentieth century suggest two warnings. First, to the extent possible, democratic means are required to reach democratic ends: means and ends cannot be separated. This requirement undoubtedly places onerous restrictions on regimes attacking inherited privilege. Warding off hostile domestic elites and the external defenders of the existing economic order is a major challenge for democratic redistributive regimes. But there is little choice for movements truly struggling for equal freedom. Justifying extra-legal, authoritarian means on the grounds of self-defense is to start the slide to tyranny. Also, markets appear indispensable in modern economies. Central planning doesn’t work, and participatory planning at the national level (though as yet untested) seems impractical.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".