MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106845579 · doi:10.1080/21598282.2025.2579900

DeepSeek Upends Silicon Valley’s Sci-Fin-Fi Business Model

2025· article· en· W7106845579 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Critical Thought · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBig Data and Digital Economy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness modelSilicon valleyProcess (computing)Production (economics)Work (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on DeepSeek’s release of its R1 model fails to capture three critical points: just how decisively R1’s release has upended the Silicon Valley business model; how decisively China is winning the technological war that the US and the West have been waging; and how the release of R1 demonstrates more clearly than ever that, notwithstanding decades of anti-socialist propaganda to the effect that, for all its faults, capitalism is best at advancing technology and, thus, the forces of production, while socialism has always failed at innovation, capitalism’s capacity to advance the forces of production is manifestly exhausted, while socialism is only now beginning to show its potential in that respect. This article discusses the first point in detail, showing that the vaunted Silicon Valley Model is systematically reliant on hyping what the technologies it offers can deliver in terms of growth or material welfare and on financial hype about the returns it can bring, combining science and financial fiction. It also traces the main academic arguments that have been mustered to support this fictional approach. It touches on the other two points only briefly in the conclusion.

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)0.021
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.020
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0230.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Critical ThoughtSame topicBig Data and Digital EconomyFrench-language works237,207