MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955488798 · doi:10.4324/9781315694092-12

Classical thought from the periphery: Homero Cuevas on non- basic goods and the standard commodity MARIO GARCIA - MOLINA AND JULIáN LIBREROS

2015· book-chapter· en· W2955488798 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGarciaCommodityHumanitiesArtCommerceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1984, he published “The correct transformation” in Cuadernos de Economía (Cuevas 1984a). This was the Spanish translation of the summary he had sent to Samuelson. As a result of the rewriting process, Cuevas wrote a new paper entirely devoted to Sraffa’s standard commodity, in which he developed previous ideas that had been briefly presented in the context of the transformation problem and Bortkiewicz’s (1907) solution. He published “On Sraffa’s standard commodity” in English in the Brazilian journal Revista de Econometria (Cuevas 1984b),3 and a Spanish version of the same article, “Sraffa, la tasa de ganancia y la economía patrón” [Sraffa, profit rate and the standard commodity] (Cuevas 1985a), in Cuadernos de Economía. The Brazilian publication unleashed a discussion with two professors: Enrique Hoffman, from the Universidade de São Paulo, and Jean Luc Rosinger, from the Universidade de Brasília.4 In 1986, Cuevas published “The Bortkiewicz system, non-basic industries and the rate of profit” (Cuevas 1986b) in Cuadernos de Economía. Also in 1986, 13 years after the first Montreal drafts, the Faculty of Economic Sciences finally printed the book Valor y sistema de precios [Value and price systems] (Cuevas 1986a). A debate was organized at the Universidad Nacional with papers from several Colombian academics, and a bitter controversy ensued (Kalmanovitz and Muñoz 1986; Valdivieso 1986); it will be further discussed below in Section 4. After this period of intense theoretical work, Cuevas devoted more time to applied work on industrialization, agriculture, and coffee (Cuevas 1986c, 1990; Cuevas and Gamarra 1989; see García-Molina 2013 for a complete bibliography), as well as to an introductory economics textbook (Cuevas 1986b). His return to the Classical theory occurred during the second half of the 1990s, with papers on the Leontief Paradox, and on the introduction of human capital in the price system by considering its return as a case of rent (Cuevas 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999). He retired from the Universidad Nacional and became Professor Emeritus in 1997. Apparently, after that retirement, he made a late discovery of Hahn (1982)5 and Duménil and Lévy (1985). Cuevas enjoyed discussing the articles of these authors with his colleagues and students, and returned with full strength to Classical theory. At this point, he published an article on the choice of techniques (Cuevas 2002), a book called La economía clásica en renovación [Renewing classical economics] (Cuevas 2001a), and articles on growth and prices of resources (Cuevas 2001b, 2003b, 2001c), as well as a second edition of Value and price systems (Cuevas 2003a). His emeritus status notwithstanding, Cuevas was again appointed as dean at the Universidad Nacional (2002-2004). Thereafter he spent the rest of his life at the Universidad Externado. In 2008, he went for a short stay to the Università degli Studi di Roma Tre, to meet Pierangelo Garegnani. In his last years, he was interested in the theory of entrepreneurs and in imperialism (Cuevas 2000a, 2002, 2006, 2008, 2011). This period also saw a closure of the discussions of the early 1980s and a rapprochement with Kalmanovitz. He delivered his last manuscript, a book called El poder y el mercado en la economía internacional [Power and market in the international economy] (Cuevas 2014) just before he passed away on the night of December 12, 2012.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.017
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207