MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2602510938 · doi:10.22459/ag.10.03.2003.06

Should We Listen to the Churches When they Speak on Economic Issues?

2003· article· en· W2602510938 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony M. C. Waterman

Bibliographic record

VenueAgenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceSociologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NON-AGENDAWith the view of causing an increase to take place in the mass of national wealth, or with a view to increase of the means either of subsistence or enjoyment, without some special reason, the general rule is, that nothing ought to be done or attempted by government.The motto, or watchword of government, on these occasions, ought to be  Be quiet...Whatever measures, therefore, cannot be justified as exceptions to that rule, may be considered as non-agenda on the part of government. Jeremy Bentham (c.1801) Should We Listen to the Churches When They Speak on Economic Issues? Anthony Watermanconomists are often derided for having two hands.I am sorry to say that I need sixteen hands in order to answer the question I have been given today.Even when I admit that some can be doubled up, I still have eight.I have no wish to bore you with taxonomy.But I must begin with a little rough-andready analysis.When Christian churches 'speak' on economic issues, their utterance may be either 'strong' or 'weak'.I mean by 'strong' an imperative statement by chief pastors or other authorized spokesmen, supposed to be based upon the teaching authority of the church, and addressed to all in a position to do something about it.I mean by 'weak' simply the expression of opinion by authorised spokesmen, or the offer of advice, or a call to 'dialogue'.Even a 'weak' statement, to be attended to at all, must rest upon authority of some kind.But not the high and mighty magisterium invoked by the Bishops of Rome in promulgating the 'social encyclicals'.Rather the merely human authority possessed by any who speak on behalf of some significant interest group, profession or non-government organization in modern society.The putative authority possessed by the Christian churches -whether strong or weak -may be used either to instruct or exhort the world at large, and especially those with power in their respective societies; or to instruct only such of the faithful as acknowledge and defer to that authority.We see an example of the former in the words used by Pope Pius XI to describe the achievement of his great

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.120
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.120
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.012
Scholarly communication0.0180.018
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0160.039
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.009

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform→Same topicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth→French-language works237,207→