Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contemporary debate on the importance of knowledge for economic development has so far mainly focused on applied knowledge such as technology or human skills, more or less directly related to industrial production. The role of the so-called “orientation(al)” knowledge, i.e. commonly held beliefs, values and ideologies, still remains underexplored. On the understanding that the social and cultural organisation of human society varies from place to place and produces a distinctive socio-cultural spatial context, this study advances the hypothesis that said context may have a significant impact on a given area’s socioeconomic development, not least by way of policy design and implementation. It asks whether “cultural” knowledge, as a constitutive part of this broader sociocultural spatial context, can foster development, making it “knowledge-based” in the widest sense of the term. If that is the case, to what extent and how does that happen?; what are the implications for the construction of a “knowledge society” in an increasingly globalized world of cultural overlaps and mergers? The study examines some aspects of existing culture-development one-way causality models (Hofstede vs Minkov) and matches these to the author’s reading of the data and his personal observations/earlier studies of Portugal and Croatia. The possibility of a “circular”culture-development link is brought up in the conclusion.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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.
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".