The Neomercantilists: A Global Intellectual History Eric Helleiner, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2021, pp. 414
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When I spotted this new book, I just had to go read it, right away. It is one of those books that you know will make a splash. ‘This is not a book I planned to write,’ the author says in the preface. It is a book he had to write. Researching intellectual histories in International Political Economy (IPE), Helleiner discovered that a book on the intellectual history of neomercantilism was lacking – so he wrote it. Prominent scholars of IPE have characterised it as having three leading ideologies: economic liberalism, Marxism and mercantilism, but the latter has been given less attention than its competitors. One may have been forgiven for being less well-read in that tradition when empirical trends were moving increasingly in a more liberal direction. However, in light of changes to the international liberal world order, and with the rise of nations whose leaders advance more protectionist policies (indeed with the US having had a president who was openly flirting with a reorientation away from liberalism towards more protectionism), students of IPE really need to go back to basics and study some of the origins of ideologies that are resurfacing today.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".