MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122340909 · doi:10.3386/w22144

A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Critical Transitions

2016· report· en· W3122340909 on OpenAlexaff
Lee J. Alston, Marcus André Melo, Bernardo Mueller, Carlos Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2016
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorld Systems and Global Transformations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversität HamburgPrinceton UniversityEconomic History Association
KeywordsPoliticsOpenness to experienceNorm (philosophy)Critical mass (sociodynamics)Context (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Political sciencePolitical economyConceptual frameworkEconomic systemPublic relationsSociologyPositive economicsEconomicsSocial psychologyComputer sciencePsychologySocial scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical transitions for a country are historical periods when the powerful organizations in a country shift from one set of beliefs about how institutions (the formal and informal rules of the game) will affect outcomes to a new set of beliefs. Critical transitions can lead a country toward more openness politically and economically or toward a more exclusionary society. Economic and political development is contextual; that is, there is no recipe. Periods of relative persistence are the norm with changes in institutions at the margin. We develop a framework consisting of several interconnected relatively unexplored concepts that we first define in a static context and then utilize to show how they produce a dynamic of institutional change or persistence. The key concepts include: windows of opportunity, beliefs, and leadership. Our major contribution is wedding the concepts of windows of opportunity, beliefs, and leadership to the dominant network, institutions, and economic and political outcomes to form a dynamic. We apply the framework illustratively to understand economic and political development in Argentina over the past 100 years.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.025
Scholarly communication0.0080.017
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.679
GPT teacher head0.613
Teacher spread0.066 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicWorld Systems and Global TransformationsFrench-language works237,207