Bibliographic record
Abstract
This edited collection explores the “three worlds” of social democracy, in Western Europe, the former Communist nations, and the postcolonial global South. The title clearly refers to Gøsta Esping-Andersen's (1990) well-known book describing liberal, corporatist, and social democratic welfare state regimes in advanced capitalist nations. While not without merit, this book is theoretically and conceptually less ambitious than Esping-Andersen's path-breaking work. Rather than clearly differentiating three ideal-types of social democratic regimes, as Esping-Andersen did, the overall argument is that across different political regions of the world, social democratic parties have failed, even when forming majority governments. This pessimistic, albeit convincing, assessment of the decline of social democratic politics is rooted in eleven national case studies. These are stand-alone chapters, so that the reader must infer comparisons across national cases, helped by the introductory and concluding chapters by the editor. Overall, the book offers a useful array of descriptions of the decline of social democratic political governments and parties across what world system's theorists (Wallerstein 1974) might refer to as the core, periphery, and semiperiphery.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".