MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986951839

Review of <i> Taxing Illusions: Taxation, Democracy and Embedded Political Theory</i> by Phillip Hansen

2007· article· en· W6986951839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial contractPoliticsNeoliberalism (international relations)Government (linguistics)Action (physics)DemocracySettlement (finance)Social democracy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Every society possesses a social contract establishing the obligations its members assume toward one another. By and large, this implicit contract governs how a society allocates responsibility for achieving its social and economic goals to the major forms of social organization; in particular, how it divides responsibilities between the public ordering process, represented, in the main, by the government, and private ordering processes, represented by the market but also by families and community organizations. As is well documented, over the past 25 years the terms of the social contract have changed dramatically in most Anglo-American countries, including Canada. The role of government has narrowed, while an emphasis on allowing markets to allocate resources and on individual choice and voluntary action has increased. Describing, explaining, and defending or lamenting the 'nuances of this shift in the social contract - from what is often referred to as the Keynesian settlement to neoliberalism - have preoccupied political scientists.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207