Bibliographic record
Abstract
The celebration of fifty years of the History of Economics Society (HES) is a wonderful achievement. It is a pity that the majority of the founding members are not alive to see this landmark. The initial seeds were planted in 1968, with a gathering run by Donald Winch at the University of Sussex, and watered the following year by A. W. “Bob” Coats at the University of Nottingham, who produced the first British History of Economic Thought newsletter. These meetings, and discussions at the annual meetings of the Allied Social Science Associations (ASSA), prompted the formation of the journal History of Political Economy (HOPE), with the first issue appearing in the spring of 1969.1 The idea of forming the HES was seriously broached in Chicago in 1973, and the first official meeting was held in Chapel Hill (North Carolina) the following year, although HES had already mounted four sessions in New York City at the 1973 ASSA meetings.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".