MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979798094 · doi:10.1093/pq/pqu086

On the People's Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy

2014· article· en· W1979798094 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

VenueThe Philosophical Quarterly · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyIdeal (ethics)DemocracyLaw and economicsPoliticsPower (physics)Economic JusticeSociologyDemocratic legitimacyIdeal theoryLawEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.264 · 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