Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robinson Crusoe (1719) by Daniel Defoe was long hailed as the founding myth of “Economic Man,” with critics until the mid-twentieth century tending to portray the shipwrecked narrator as the exemplar of utilitarian individualism. The novel’s reception among economists from David Ricardo to Karl Marx was largely determined by Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s revisionary reading, which excluded large parts of the narrative from consideration. In revisiting the parts that Rousseau thought extraneous, this essay finds that the character of Crusoe is an eminently social being who relies on the charity of several generous benefactors. Their relationships are notably amicable, constituted by mutual trust and goodwill. As an intimate society, they share gifts and ex change favours without apparent regard for profit-making. In representing them selves as generous friends, they belie the economic realities that support their accumulation of wealth. The Crusoe that emerges from an examination of his symbolic activity is one whose practices of gift-giving are governed less by reason or notions of utility than by powerful symbols and the relations that inhere in them.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".