Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contract is a central trope in the organization of modern society. For too long, contract theory has avoided presenting a justification of contract that is ambitious enough to account for this centrality. Happily, this situation is changing, as private law theory is in the midst of refiguring the relationship among contracts, markets, and morality. Recently, a number of unrelated works have advanced both explanatory and justificatory arguments that draw tight connections among the three. Despite divergent starting points and theoretical predilections, the theories converge in characterizing the way that markets value everything in their orbit: impersonally, diffusely, and abstractly. They posit a common vision of the market in which value emerges without coordination, without discussion, and without agreement as to its meaning, motive, or cause. This article analyses these theoretical innovations, offers a brief critique, and then develops a more ambitious alternative. It suggests that contracting in markets can be a site of reasoned discussion about what the market should achieve rather than exclusively a single-minded means to maximize returns. Markets are at times an opportunity to recruit others to our projects, not only because they are financially profitable but also because they are normatively attractive. And that recruiting is a form of politicizing markets by exercising voice without invoking the need for public command. The market itself can be a site of collaborative ventures that accentuate self-government rather than bracketing value.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".