MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184789214 · doi:10.1590/0101-31572000-1220

The New Institutional Economics, Business Associations, and Development

2000· article· en· W3184789214 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

VenueBrazilian Journal of Political Economy · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Theory and Policy
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemiseWashington ConsensusInstitutional economicsSchools of economic thoughtPolitical scienceEconomicsFree marketNew institutional economicsPublic administrationLaw and economicsPolitical economyNeoclassical economicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT With the demise of development economics in the 1970s, the academic discipline of economics had little specific theorizing on development to offer practioners and proffered instead universal, liberal nostrums of free trade and free markets (Wing, 1990). These universal prescriptions evolved into the first catalogued Washington consensus in the 1980s on the urgency of market-oriented reforms in developing countries (Williamson, 1990). In the 1990s, a new connection formed between an emerging institutionalist subfield in economics and the next consensus in Washington after the first generation of market-oriented reforms. The opening of the third annual meetings of the International Society for New Institutional Economics (ISNIE) at World Bank headquarters in Washington, D.C. in September 1999 symbolized this new connection.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.205 · 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