MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401332412 · doi:10.1215/00182702-11470239

Koopmans, Dantzig, and the Wartime Origins of Activity Analysis

2024· article· en· W4401332412 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

VenueHistory of Political Economy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical economicsEconomicsEconometricsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the introduction to Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation (Cowles Monograph No. 13), Tjalling C. Koopmans recalled that he developed the model of his “Optimal Utilization of the Transportation System” (in the proceedings of 1947 International Statistical Congress, which were reissued as an Econometrica supplement, 1949) “under the stimulation of statistical work for the Combined Shipping Adjustment Board, the British-American board dealing with merchant shipping problems during the second world war.” Similarly, the contributions of George B. Dantzig and Marshall K. Wood to Cowles Monograph No. 13 (two revised journal articles and five new chapters) emerged from wartime work for the US Army Air Force and postwar work for the Department of the Air Force. This article examines the context and consequences of the wartime roots of these foundational contributions to activity analysis and linear programming, with particular attention to Koopmans's 1942 memorandum for the Combined Shipping Adjustment Board titled “Exchange Ratios between Cargoes on Various Routes” (first published in his Scientific Papers, 1970).

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.266 · 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