Bibliographic record
Abstract
It may seem odd to begin a study of Locke's modern politics by turning to his most philosophic work, the Essay Concerning Human Understanding . Indeed, it was once quite common among Locke scholars to express serious doubts as to whether the Essay and Locke's political writings such as the Two Treatises are even compatible with the latter advancing a political theory based on natural law, natural rights, and property, and the former propounding an empiricist epistemology with little to say about rights and displaying a skeptical attitude toward any normative claims derived from nature. While Locke's epistemological and political writings certainly reflect different kinds of books with discrete particular aims, it is important to understand their fundamental connection. At their deepest level, all of Locke's mature writings, whether political, philosophical, moral, or theological, reflect his consuming preoccupation with examining and defending human freedom in its various aspects. The aspect of human freedom Locke illuminated and developed in the Essay involved his treatment of the intellectual foundations of modernity. This philosophic account of intellectual freedom was a feature of a novel conception of the rational faculties, which we will term the democratization of mind . It was in the context of his articulation of a new philosophy of mind that Locke addressed such politically salient questions as: What does it mean to be a free moral agent and how does an individual mind come to know anything in particular, much less the general form and substance of a natural law governing human relations?
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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".