Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heavily indebted and in the throes of drastic austerity programmes, Italy and Ireland find themselves much in the same situation as a quarter of a century ago. In the second half of the 1980s and the early 1990s, the two countries carried out successful fiscal and economic stabilization programmes that elicited intense attention from scholars of economic adjustment. The recurrence of the two countries’ troubles provides an exceptional opportunity to put theories of economic adjustment to test. Comparative analyses of the earlier instances of stabilization concentrated on the similarities between the two cases and converged on emphasizing the importance of social pacts in allowing successful reform. In contrast, this paper shows that already a quarter century ago, the two countries followed very different trajectories to stabilization despite the institutional similarities of the solutions they adopted. It argues that fundamental differences in the two countries’ societal structure – more specifically, differences in the level of socio-economic polarization – are crucial in understanding the differences in the two countries’ ability to renegotiate redistributive arrangements and thus to carry out successful adjustment then as now.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".