Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging attention to policy discourse and network models of governance render dubious Jürgen Habermas' claim that discourses do not govern. His position follows from a sharp delineation between civil society and the state and from a conceptual strategy, centering on a bifurcation of lifeworld and system, that tends to deflect attention from multiple, complex ways in which discourses connect public spheres with the policy process. Given his substantial influence on the emergence of critical policy studies, Habermas thus presents a paradox. Although his work has served to advance the critique of technocracy, his conceptual strategy tends to reinforce technocratic self-images in a way that would inhibit a move from monologue to dialogue in policy discourse. The potential for such a move suggests that the question to ask is not whether discourses govern, but which discourses are to be involved in governing.
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 | 0.021 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".