MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What the New Deal Did

2003· book-chapter· en· W4388391156 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David M. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsperityOrder (exchange)New DealEconomic recoverySocial securityPolitical scienceDuration (music)Quarter (Canadian coin)Political economyEconomicsHistoryLawPoliticsFinanceKeynesian economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Not with a bang, but a whimper, the New Deal petered out in 1938. Roosevelt’s annual message to Congress in January 1939 was his first in which he did not propose new social and economic programs. “We have now passed the period of internal conflict in the launching of our program of social reform,” he announced. “Our full energies may now be released to invigorate the processes of recovery in order to preserve our reforms.” As it happened, recovery awaited not the release of more New Deal energies but the unleashing of the dogs of war. Yet the end of reform scarcely meant the end of social and economic change, nor even the end of pursuing those goals the New Deal had championed, especially the goal of security. When the war brought recovery at last, a recovery that inaugurated the most prosperous quarter century America has ever known, it brought it to an economy and a country that the New Deal had fundamentally altered. Indeed, the achievements of the New Deal years surely played a role in determining the degree and the duration of postwar prosperity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.007

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolitical and Economic history of UK and USFrench-language works237,207