Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unusual triad of unlike concepts that makes up the French motto “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” reveals a set of rights that is carried by an obligation. Fraternity is a vessel: if citizens do not act as siblings, they cannot move toward “the full freedom of each bounded only by the equal freedom of every other,” nor the equal right “to the use and enjoyment of all natural opportunities” (George, 1881/1898, p. 86). But this metaphor contains an inherent contradiction if a united, democratic community is to be its ultimate end, much as Catlaw (2007) remarked about the concept “We the people” (pp. 264–265). Indeed, siblings, or We, share traditions and histories; to not share in these institutions is to be the Other (pp. 264–265). Fraternity, therefore—unlike its sister concept, solidarity, which seeks to unite groups that otherwise would not be united—evokes a divided society, where citizens either belong to a “band of brothers,” or they do not. The French motto has nevertheless endured the test of time, reflecting the power of the ideal it represents: a unified citizenry moving toward what Aristotle called the good life (Stanisevski, 2014, p. 111). In this short essay, we suggest that public interest as the final destination of a vessel called “the Public” (Dewey, 1927/1991, p. 35) is also problematic. Although the Public is constituted of multiple publics, public interest scholars like Bozeman (2007) and Dewey (1927/1991) assume that the process of amalgamating them into a single unit occurs more or less naturally, through public debate informed by scientific evidence. Yet this united public, like fraternity or We the people, has never described the natural state of affairs in human society. Hobbes’s solution to the perpetual state of “war of every man against every man”—the war of the first brothers of Western literature—was Leviathan (1651/1996, p. 136). But this mistaken premise does not, in itself, constitute a problem. Public administration scholars may find the Aristotelian ideal appealing (Waldo, 1948, pp. 65–75), but waiting on the Public to materialize, or taking a political authority’s capacity to articulate the will of a We as a given, only makes it that much more difficult to attain.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".