MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391601832 · doi:10.1080/17530350.2024.2302182

How to be not economic: abundance and the history of strolling

2024· article· en· W4391601832 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cultural Economy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Economy and Marxism
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)RationalitySituationismState (computer science)SociologyAestheticsScarcityHistoryArtLawEconomicsPolitical sciencePhilosophyMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay offers an interpretation of the canonical history of strolling as a non-economic practice, that is, as a practice free of purpose and means. I consider strolling as a state of mind that discloses abundance in a similar way as rationality discloses scarcity. I inquire into the multiple facets of this state of mind by re-reading three phases in its literary and cultural history: the early modern artist-stroller of the nineteenth-century panoramic literature that finds its peak in Charles Baudelaire; the high modern consumer-stroller as described in the inter-war period, notably in the work of Walter Benjamin; and the late modern subversive stroller that is re-discovered in the mid-twentieth century by the Situationist Guy Debord among others. This interpretation both sheds light on the social preconditions of economic rationality as an organizing principle of a market society, as well as the potential to step out of this principle.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.245 · 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