On the People's Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rousseau told us that life could be tranquil in dungeons without thereby making them desirable. In a similar way, it is not enough for a state to grant interpersonal justice to its people for it to be fully desirable. We also need to address the manner in which power is exercised. Only then is power to be made right. This is a question regarding the legitimacy of political power and it is at the core of Pettit's On the People's Terms. This is an extensive book that touches various aspects of political theory. It analyses and argues for the concept of freedom as non-domination. It derives both a theory of justice and a theory of political legitimacy from the ideal of freedom as non-domination. More precisely, it argues that a concern for the realization of equal freedom as non-domination entails requirements as to how citizens should relate one to another (justice) and how they should relate to their collectivity (legitimacy). Finally, it deals in what some would call non-ideal theory in assessing the manner in which democratic institutions can actually realize the ideal of freedom as non-domination.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".