Constructivism and Evolutionism: The Tactic of Government's Behavior in the Institutional Transition/CONSTRUCTIVISME ET ÉVOLUTIONNISME : TACTIQUE DU COMPORTEMENT GOUVERNEMENTAL DANS LA TRANSITION INSTITUTIONNELLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The process of institutional transition was deeply influenced by the government's behavior, which is the fundamental element in institutional transition analysis. The origin of government's different behavior comes from philosophy and two conventions in economics. The rationalism leads to constructivism and the empiricism leads to evolutionism, these conventions in economics cause different government's behavior in the institutional transition. After analyzing these differences, we make a conclusion that the government should pay attention to special initial conditions and compromise two conventions in economics, and then select appropriate tactic for the regional economic development. Key words: Constructivism, Evolutionism, Institutional transition, Government's behavior Resume: Le processus de transition institutionnelle a ete profondement influencee par le comportement du gouvernement, qui est un element fondamental dans l'analyse de la transition institutionnelle. L'origine des comportements differents du gouvernement reside dans la philosophie et deux conventions economiques. Le rationalisme conduit au constructivisme et l'empirisme a l'evolutionnisme. Ces conventions de l'economie entrainent les comportements gouvernementaux differents dans la transition institutionnelle. Apres l'analyse de ces differences, on arrive a la conclusion que le gouvernement devrait preter attention aux conditions speciales initiales et faire un compromis pour les deux conventions economiques, et puis choisir la tactique appropriee du developpement economique regional. Mots-Cles: constructivisme, evolutionnisme, transition institutionnelle, comportement gouvernemental In the past few years, many economists were interested in the case of institutional transition in Russia and China. Their research focused on several problems: How to choose the routine of institutional transition according to the initial conditions? How to set the boundary of government's behavior? How to construct the machine-processed for the regional economic development? For searching for answer, we should go back to the philosophy in social analysis and the convention in economics. Social analysis told us that many theories, which originated from the rationalism and the empiricism in philosophy, are used in the institutional transition analysis. Those theories resulted in two conventions in economics that were called the constructivism and the evolutionism. Those conventions influenced government's behavior and made it complicated. Then the government's behavior influenced deeply the direction and routine of institutional transition. 1. THE ARGUMENT IN RATIONALISM AND EMPIRICISM Many famous scholars involved in the argument about rationalism and empiricism in 18 century. The French philosopher named Descartes created the rationalism in philosophy, and then Leibniz and Rousseau set up the scientific spirit on the base of it, which help the natural science and social science to develop. At the same time, Francis Bacon created the empiricism in philosophy that emphasized experience and knowledge in reality. Descartes pointed out that rational method is the only way to find truth, and logic analysis helps people to construct the knowledge system. The set of rational methods includes instinct, analysis, deduction and conclusion on the base of natural spirit. The Descartes' thought push modern science to go forward. Spinoza made the rationalism gradually to become the normal method in natural science and social analysis. On the other hand, empiricists never stopped criticizing the rationalism. John Locke hold an idea that knowledge comes from experience, but not natural spirit; and the range of knowledge is the boundary of people's understanding ability. Hume pointed out that the rational analyzing method is totally wrong, by which the knowledge system cannot be constructed. Everybody who wants to find out the relationship between cause and effect should pay attention to experience and habit in reality. …
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".