TEACHING GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM THEORY IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY: AN ANALYSIS OF TREATISES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the teaching of Walrasian general equilibrium theory in the early twentieth century through an analysis of three treatises: Arthur Bowley’s The Mathematical Groundwork of Economics (1924), Gustav Cassel’s The Theory of Social Economy (1924), and Étienne Antonelli’s Principes d’économie pure (1914). Despite their original contributions, the three works were also intended to be read by students. Examining these treatises contributes to a historical understanding of pre-war economics education literature and sheds light on the evolution of mathematical economics, particularly within the context of the educational process. The paper concludes that while all three treatises presented Léon Walras’s general equilibrium framework, they simultaneously reflected diverse fundamental beliefs about economic science, such as its objective and scope. Notably, there was no singular dominant group appropriating Walras’s model. However, a content analysis revealed structural similarities among the treatises.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".