The Tawhidi Methodological Worldview as A Model of Circular Political Economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The critique of mainstream socioeconomic reasoning in the light of the new yet opposing methodological worldview is explained by the specific problem of circular economy. Circular economy in its mainstream is functionally a macroeconomic concept disjointly constructed and explained away from any possible interrelations with microeconomics. Thereby, all the extra-domain of social and scientific phenomena are dissolved from mainstream socio-scientific reasoning. Yet reality is far from such a digitalized narrowed perception when viewed from the objectivity of the wellbeing criterion and its common sustainability prospect. In reference to such an opposing epistemic criticism the mainstream meaning of the General Flow of Goods and Services in the context of Circular Political Economy (CPE) is of exogenously separable connectivity of flows of inputs, resources, production, consumption, distribution, and re-circulation across financial and real economic sectors. Contrarily, from the participatory and unified organic linkages between micro-social entities aggregating to integrated society-wide unit of analysis, there is the new epistemic conception and methodology of a new GFGS-CPE understanding. This paper examines the emergent substantive methodological difference between the two worldviews – Tawhidi methodological contra mainstream.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".