Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Engels's appreciation of the allocative function of prices in competitive capitalism is demonstrated in the first three substantive sections below. The first establishes the general principles adopted; the second takes account of applications made of the competitive pricing model to housing and credit policy (and also his orthodox approach toward foreign-trade policy); and the third concerns the hostile response made to the “communist” proposals by Karl Rodbertus (1842 and 1851). The documents upon which I draw date to the 1870s, and they reveal a distinct contrast with the position of the early 1840s when Engels emphasized the instability of the market process rather than the equilibrating function of prices (see Chapter One, pp. 30–1). I turn in Section E to Engels's position on communist organization, drawing on the early writings of 1843–4, including the Outlines (reinforcing the claims of priority over Marx made on his behalf in Chapter 1); on Anti-Dühring in 1878; and on later formal and informal statements. Here I seek to appreciate Engels's championship of a control system notwithstanding his high respect for the allocative role of markets in a private-property system. Rodbertus's scheme, Engels charged, had improperly neglected to allow for competition notwithstanding its retention of several features of a market system, whereas the reconstructed system he himself had in mind would be one so greatly simplified that a sophisticated allocation mechanism was not required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".