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
One challenge in contemporary political philosophy is to reconcile groups' claims for rights and collective self-determination with a liberal commitment to the priority of individuals' rights and well-being. A solution to this puzzle may rest on a justification of group rights based on shared individual interests. This presupposes the collective conception of group rights, which does not entail that a group has to be conceived of as a distinct entity, with an independent moral standing. Such a strategy would thus not lead to conflicts between the rights of a group and those of its individual members. This article argues that this strategy does not succeed in justifying genuine group rights. Shared interests cannot ground rights held by a group qua group, especially the kind of rights that national or cultural groups demand. The conclusion of this argument is that the interest theorist has to embrace a view of groups as distinct entities in order to ascribe them rights qua group. So the upshot of this article is that communitarian or full-blown nationalist justifications of collective rights may be more coherent than some liberal attempts although probably less plausible and more problematic from a normative point of view.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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