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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Menon and Lele???s note about my 2001 World Development paper makes a useful point ??? that most studies of the commons tend to focus on questions of institutional persistence and ignore questions related to equity and distribution. It is a relatively normal-science criticism that they present as a novel argument. To the extent my paper represents the existing mainstream literature on the commons reasonably, Menon and Lele???s attention to allocation is well justified. But this is hardly a new theme in critiques of writings on common property. Indeed, \nwhat Menon and Lele call 'the mainstream literature on the commons' is such a sitting duck on issues of politics and distributional equity that it seems hardly fair to take aim at it in 2003 using this particular sling. Michael Goldman assertively made essentially the same point six years ago in a paper published in Theory and Society. I raise the issue in a somewhat different way ??? by talking about power and the ways commons scholars (do not) attend to it in their analyses??? in a paper that appeared in Contributions to Indian Sociology at almost exactly the \nsame time as the paper in World Development."
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it