Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper makes two interrelated arguments. First, at the root of the contrasting performance of the US and China amid the pandemic are the contrasting ways in which the two societies have come to organize their economies, particularly their money and credit systems. These differences are not widely recognized, let alone analyzed. Secondly, these contrasts emerge from the longer history of antagonisms in the geopolitical economy of world capitalism and its dialectic of uneven and combined development. This dialectic between and dominant nations and those contesting their domination have typically featured contrasting monetary and financial systems. The original dominant country, Britain inherited a creditor-oriented financial system providing short-term credit that preyed upon, rather than expanded, the productive economy. Britain fostered this system and projected it abroad through the gold-sterling standard through which it exercised a financial dominance long after its industrial dominance. The US, which sought to emulate such financial dominance, also reverted to the UK's archaic financial model. By contrast, countries interested in challenging the domination of powerful countries, with their need for stronger productive economies and growth, have had financial systems that have subserved productive expansion with longterm ‘patient’ credit, considered the interest of debtors–usually productive investors–as well as creditors, and usually managed or controlled international capital flows. The predatory system of the originally dominant country, Britain, should have declined after the outbreak of the First World War in the face of the strength of countries with production-oriented systems. However, a complex twist of history gave it a second life as the post 1970s US financial system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".