MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180830600 · doi:10.1080/10370196.2021.1949533

Ludwig Hamburger (1890–1968): From Relaxation Oscillations to Business Cycles

2021· article· en· W3180830600 on OpenAlexaff
Franck Jovanovic

Bibliographic record

VenueHistory of Economics Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Institutions
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQ
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness cycleBiographyWork (physics)Scope (computer science)EconomicsPositive economicsRelaxation (psychology)Classical economicsKeynesian economicsSociologyHistoryArt historyComputer sciencePsychologyPhysicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several authors have been interested in Ludwig Hamburger’s attempt to analyse business cycles with a nonlinear endogenous model in the early 1930s. Indeed, Hamburger was one of the first, if not the first, to suggest applying Van der Pol’s relaxation oscillations to business cycles. Ragnar Frisch was interested in his work when he was working on his 1933 seminal paper on a propagation-impulse model, in which we find some references to this suggestion. Despite the interest in Hamburger’s work, the breadth, scope and impact of his works remain unknown and misunderstood, for both historians of economics and sciences. Moreover, several errors, such as the reason why Hamburger did not continue his original work in economics, exist in the economic literature concerning this author and the diffusion of his work in economics. The present work provides a biography of Ludwig Hamburger and corrects the errors we find in the literature. It also sheds new light on the origins of his attempt to analyse business cycles with a nonlinear endogenous model.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.158 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistory of Economics ReviewSame topicEconomic Theory and InstitutionsFrench-language works237,207