Conclusion: Clues to a Co-operative Future?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The three sections of this book move from local case studies of cooperativism to examples of systemic designs, especially in the form of CWB, that incorporate co-operation in the widest sense of the word. The Preston Model and its budding offshoot in Japan are just two examples of a changing mindset in how life, space and work can be organized, with human beings taking centre stage. The Preston Model is highlighted in this book because of recent attention to its successes and influence and its focus on co-operation. The Preston Model has captured the imagination and ignited hopes and desires for change. We do not claim that the Preston Model is uniquely innovative. Not only does it have its roots in Cleveland and Mondragon, but there are many versions of CWB or the social economy dotted around the world, each with its local touch. Some are recent, as in Barcelona or Cincinnati, and others have been established for several decades, as is the case of the ‘Chantier’ system of social and economic innovation in Quebec (Mendell, 2009). It does seem, however, that the development of the Preston Model is uniquely situated at a moment of social and economic change in the UK with significant outreach and influence – as in the national economies of Scotland and Wales – that is not common to all such systemic innovations. It is no longer incontestably accepted that the neoliberal modality of the capitalist system based squarely on competition and hierarchical structures of reward can solve its own problems in a world beset by multiplying and recurring crises. This is why a growing number of academics and public intellectuals argue in favour of market plurality and many endorse the cooperative model of organizing as a promising alternative to market orthodoxy, capable of advancing more socially balanced and participatory practices (Stiglitz, 2002; Porritt, 2007; Restakis, 2010; Birchall, 2013). The authors of this book align with this thinking and have engaged with the task of outlining thoughts of an exciting future of co-operation as a force that can counteract the failures and shortcomings of the neoliberal way of engaging the market and the competition that accompanies it.
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 | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.041 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.010 |
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".