MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592762564

25 Years of the Transition Strategy Debate: Radicalism versus Gradualism

2015· article· en· W2592762564 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ichiro Iwasaki, Taku Suzuki

Bibliographic record

VenueEconometric Reviews · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRussia and Soviet political economy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGradualismPolitical radicalismSign (mathematics)Argument (complex analysis)Transition (genetics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Convergence (economics)Political scienceEconomicsPositive economicsKeynesian economicsHistoryLawMacroeconomicsPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we trace the academic debate on the transition strategies that former socialist countries have adopted and implemented in evolving towards a market-oriented economy through a comprehensive review of the preceding literature. The debate has developed as an argument between two conflicting reform philosophies, namely, radicalism and gradualism. Despite that a quarter century that has passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall, we found that academic discussion regarding these two reform alternatives has continued, and there is no sign of convergence. We also found a close relationship between the debate attitudes and the literature attributes, such as authorship, research contents and publication media.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconometric ReviewsSame topicRussia and Soviet political economyFrench-language works237,207