Conceptualizing contemporary markets: Introduction to the special issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary markets are evolving in numerous ways that affect their structure, dynamics and consequences. Yet while the concept of the market is central to comparative, international and global political economy, there exists no concerted body of literature dedicated to debating and articulating different conceptions of the market and that critically self-reflects on how these empirical transformations are intersecting with the central theoretical concerns of political economy: power, contestation and change. This special issue enriches the debate by looking to decentre the concept of the market from its traditional home in mainstream neoclassical/liberal political economy. Western-centric conceptualizations of the market based on a minimal atomistic classical definition have dominated international economic discourses but it is becoming increasingly clear that different understandings of markets and the functions they serve are crystalizing between market stakeholders at the global level. This special issue addresses these concerns via the historicization of the concept of the market, the development and refinement of the concept of the market, as well as the decentring of the concept of the market via empirical studies of global market change informed by an awareness of the political, economic, social and cultural embeddedness of markets. In so doing, the special issue leverages the insights of global political economy and cognate disciplines to achieve richer insights into the analytical potential of the concept of the market.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".