MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407582282 · doi:10.1017/s000305542500005x

What Is the Wrong of Capitalism?

2025· article· en· W4407582282 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chiara Cordelli

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Political Science Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillAmerican University in CairoYale UniversityUppsala UniversitetUniversity of CambridgePrinceton UniversityUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCapitalismNeoclassical economicsEconomicsEconomic systemPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The troubled state of economic life today has prompted a revival of normative critiques of capitalism. According to a prominent critique, radical republicanism, capitalism is defined by its mode of production and the distinctive wrong of capitalism amounts to a structural form of domination. By arguing that radical republicanism fails to provide a satisfactory account of capitalism’s distinctiveness—and of its core wrong—I propose an alternative account focused on the mode of investment. Capitalism’s mode of investment, I assert, entails a loss of collective control over, and involvement in, the valuation and creation of the future. The wrong inhering in this loss is best understood in terms of alienation —an alienated relation between citizens and their sociopolitical order—rather than domination. In turn, socialism should be understood as a project of reconciliation, the point of which is to overcome this form of alienation through the socialization and democratic planning of investment.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.035
Scholarly communication0.0120.015
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Political Science ReviewSame topicPolitical Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207