Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this chapter is to prepare the ground for theorizing the diversity and spatiality of markets, (necessarily) dealing with, but seeking to move concertedly beyond, the restrictive optic of the orthodox model. It seeks to do so by way of three steps. The following section opens up some preliminary questions about the place of markets and their actually existing historical geography. Next, the chapter turns to the challenge of decentring the market, of moving beyond the idea that the market properly and eternally belongs at the centre of the economic universe. What is the scope for understanding “real markets”, both conceptually and empirically, without recourse to the idealized model of the “pure” market, and all its downstream distortions? Finally, the chapter addresses the question of alternative “mappings” of markets, taking some cues from the work of Karl Polanyi, but urging a more thoroughgoing reconstruction. The chapter’s conclusion acknowledges that the “where?” of markets remains a demanding theoretical question, such that what follows serves to inform some different points of departure, not the destination itself. New answers to this “where?” question, though properly a matter for what Polanyi characterizes as the “substantivist” investigation of real-world market formation, re-formation and transformation, ought to recognize, inter alia: first, the relational character of markets, which are codependent on non-market modes of coordination and regulation; second, their “instituted” form, necessary in function but variable in practice; and not least, third, their always out-of-equilibrium processual dynamics and contradictions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".