Bibliographic record
Abstract
You-may I return to the name Andy? 1 -have found, I suspect, some of the twists and turns of the previous essays somewhat curious if not disconcerting.We five writers have been interested, in a committed sense, in inviting you to come to grips with obvious elements in your own activities of giving and receiving credit in all its meanings.Have you given us credit enough to have a decent shot at self-attention, at attending to the dynamics of business, and to the nature of and dynamics of money?Have you begun to notice how that effort points you to a consoling freeing of your liberty, and a disturbing freeing from present religious common sense?And might your new freedom move you towards some level of involvement in shifting that religious common sense towards informed care, and in shifting the ambient context of establishments in economics and education?The shifts, of course, will be minuscule unless you are in a position of influence.But even if you are in a position of influence what can you do?Last week I watched and listened to President Obama addressing Wall St.He might as well have been talking to, well, a Wall St.Certainly there are ranges of ways of trying to be influential, 2 but I would have you focus on, e.g., your local school-teacher of economics.Still, perhaps you are in a position to talk to the influential people?I wish you the best of luck and invite something of the deviousness of the Unjust Stewart.There is the sad lesson of Obama, not just his talk to Wall St.-on my mind since I heard it a few days ago-but his bail-out conversations.And need I mention his healthcare talking? 1 Andrew recalls a male disciple of Jesus, but Andy, male or female, seems handy, since, while it does not reach out globally, it can be read as And You or Andthee, a device my coauthors have kindly tolerated and even promoted.2 In the final two chapters of Pastkeynes Pastmodern Economics I give various suggestions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".