MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220717462 · doi:10.1521/siso.2022.86.2.291

Democratic Economic Planning, Social Metabolism and the Environment

2022· article· en· W4220717462 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

VenueScience & Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainability and Ecological Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyPerspective (graphical)Citizen journalismEconomic planningSociologyEcologyManagement sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsComputer scienceBiologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three models of democratic economic planning - Devine and Adaman's negotiated coordination, Albert and Hahnel's participatory economics, and Cockshott and Cottrell's computerized central planning - have important implications for the wider perspective of ecological economics. When the models are reviewed from the standpoint of the complexity and biophysical interdependence inherent in ecological systems, they are shown to contain a number of problematic areas, revealed in the way they tackle ecological challenges. A potential way to resolve these problems points toward a new framework for understanding democratic economic planning. A merger of the different models and insights can lead to new institutions that would be better adapted to confronting current environmental issues.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.208 · 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