MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922480604 · doi:10.1515/ldr-2019-0015

Freedom from Development

2019· article· en· W2922480604 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Ilg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Law and Development Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElement (criminal law)Government (linguistics)CitizenshipProcess (computing)Law and economicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthPublic relationsSociologyEconomicsLawPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper proposes that there are three essential elements or phases of development: (i) systemic capacity; (ii) individual capability, and (iii) social citizenship. Significantly, the role of government within each element of development is decidedly different. Systemic capacity refers to the development of the economic means, or wealth creation, needed to provide society with services and public goods. Capability building refers to providing individuals with the basic conditions required to live a long and fulfilling life, such as health and education. Social citizenship recognizes that values held by individuals and groups will often conflict, and there is rarely a singular social end that can determine life in a free society. Fostering citizenship reflects the importance of belonging, and the obligations, responsibilities, and restraint that individuals owe to others, society, and the environment. This third element is a notable departure from many traditional approaches to development, which tend to concentrate on development as largely a process of feeding individual needs. The proposed approach is labelled “freedom from development,” for it is premised on the recognition that while society often benefits from the pursuit of traditional development, it does not do so exclusively nor without qualification. So while there are many instances in which development is a desirable social end, as when people derive greater capabilities from economic growth, there are also situations when the end of development must be displaced in favour of other social priorities. For example, there are times when markets yield freedom, and times when the freedom people crave will be found in rejecting the market altogether. Freedom from development suggests that values represented under the third element of citizenship will often have come at the expense of those of the first two elements, meaning that development in a traditional manner is superseded in a given context. In order to determine when freedom from development is socially desirable, it is suggested that a form of cost-benefit analysis is implicitly conducted, comparing the economic and individual gains available under the first two elements with the potential social gains from belonging under the third element of citizenship.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Law and Development ReviewSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207