MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974678593 · doi:10.1163/156852811x558465

Analogies du pouvoir partagé:remarques sur Aristote, Politique III.11

2011· article· en· W1974678593 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhronesis · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theory and Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPhilosophyPower (physics)Ancient philosophyGovernment (linguistics)EpistemologyGood governmentHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyLawLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A new assessment of Aristotle Politics 3.11 shows that most of the arguments contained in this chapter are strictly analogical and should not be granted too much weight in Aristotle’s overall conception of popular government. A close analysis of the four analogies used by Aristotle to illustrate the so-called “wisdom of the many” brings to light both the negative and the positive conclusions allowed by this chapter, the following in particular: 1) the partial inclusion of the people in government decisions is desirable insofar as the people are affected by these decisions; 2) the people’s judgements are most qualified in some areas of political life, such as the audit of the magistrates; 3) the optimal distribution of power in the political community is made in accordance with the relative merits of all its members.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it