Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steven Horwitz of St. Lawrence University reviews “F. A. Hayek and the Modern Economy: Economic Organization and Activity”, by Sandra J. Peart and David M. Levy. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Ten papers, resulting from the ""Hayek and the Modern World" conference held at the University of Richmond in April 2013, explore the role of human agency in Friedrich Hayek's thought and consider his writings as they relate to economic organization and activity, particularly to assess what role he assigns to leaders in determining economic progress. Papers discuss Hayek's unsentimental liberalism (Peter McNamara); Hayek and the ""individualists" (Sandra J. Peart and David M. Levy); the evolution, evaluation, and reform of social morality--a Hayekian analysis (Gerald Gaus); Hayek and the conditions of freedom (Kenneth Minogue); Hayek and the early foundations of spontaneous order (Emily Skarbek); Hayek and the nomothetes (Christopher S. Martin); the control of engagement order--Clement Attlee's road to serfdom? (Ekkehard A. Köhler and Stefan Koler); Hayekian perspectives on Canada's economic and social reforms of the 1990s (Jason Clemens and Niels Veldhuis); the conjoint quest for a liberal positive program--""Old Chicago," Freiburg, and Hayek (Andrew Farrant and Nicola Tynan); and Hayek and Václav Klaus's life (Klaus). Peart is Dean of the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at the University of Richmond. Levy is Professor of Economics at George Mason University and Distinguished Fellow of the History of Economics Society.”
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.425 | 0.432 |
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".