Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geoffrey Hodgson has recently published a book where he wonders why heterodox economics seems to thrive while at the same time losing ground within the most prestigious universities. Although Hodgson considers himself to be a heterodox economist, he complains about the way heterodoxy has been defined by some of its most active thinkers, in particular Frederic Lee and Tony Lawson. Hodgson believes that heterodox economics should be defined neither by a left-leaning ideology nor by critical realism. He argues that too much energy has been devoted to the study of macroeconomics by the Marxist and post-Keynesian brands of heterodox economics, as they left aside what he believes to be the crucial issue of microeconomic behaviour which can be found in behavioural and evolutionary economics. Hodgson further argues that what he considers to be the decline in the impact of heterodox economics is partly due to a lack of quality control. The paper outlines and comments on these various assertions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".