MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175244644 · doi:10.1111/kykl.12268

Top graduate programmes in economics: Historical evolution and recent evidence

2021· article· en· W3175244644 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueKyklos · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovations in Educational Methods
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEliteNarrativeEmigrationStyle (visual arts)Relation (database)Position (finance)Political scienceSociologyEconomic historyHistoryEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The first part of the paper provides a novel overview narrative of the historical evolution of PhD programmes in economics from 1880, drawing on multiple sources. The second part is empirical, and, also novel in terms of the data constructed. It attempts to bring the narrative up to date by looking at the cohorts of winners of the main young economist awards in economics in the US and Europe over the last twenty years or so and to chart at which universities they obtained their doctorates and undergraduate degrees. The total number of young (at the time of the award) economists so involved exceeds 350. The evolution of the American‐style PhD programme of today is traced to the emigration of European economists to the US from Nazi‐occupied Europe in the 1930s, and its subsequent spread first to Britain and then Continental Europe documented. What is new in the last twenty years or so is the emergence of many Top‐50 economics departments in Europe, with corresponding highly regarded PhD programmes. However, in relation to the recent elite young award‐winning economists the position in terms of PhD education of Harvard and MIT particularly remains largely unchallenged, in both the US and Europe.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.244 · 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