MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039683354 · doi:10.3138/utlj.63.3.261112

HUGO PREUSS’S CONCEPT OF THE <i>VOLK</i>: CRITICAL CONFUSION OR SOPHISTICATED CONCEPTION?

2013· article· en· W2039683354 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter C. Caldwell

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionLawDemocracyPoliticsMythologyPolitical scienceState (computer science)DoctrineSubject (documents)SociologyPhilosophyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hugo Preuss, Germany’s Interior Minister during the revolution of 1918–9, was the chief influence on the shape of the Weimar Constitution (1919–33). In his writings and constitutional commentaries over the years that followed, he developed a theory of politics that aimed to bridge the gap between revolution and constitution by institutionalizing the power of the ‘people.’ From his critics’ point of view, the result was an eclectic mixture of different concepts of the ‘people.’ The Volk was sometimes a substantive, unified subject – the nation as real, willing entity; at other times, it was a disunited plurality of voices; at still other times it was the product of a procedure for creating laws and electing leaders. And last but not least, Preuss also referred to a set of historical and cultural notions that contributed to a sense of national belonging. I argue that Preuss provided an account of revolutionary democracies that was both realistic and viable precisely because it remained, in its basic concepts, fragmented and contradictory – as indeed the ‘people’ in a democracy, as a plurality of voices able to express itself in different institutional ways, in fact are. Preuss’s aim of emancipating civil society through a constitutional revolution while guarding against the myth of the state and the myth of the univocal Volk foreshadows the aims of the ‘self-limiting’ revolutionaries of 1989–90.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient 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 score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicPolitical Theology and SovereigntyFrench-language works237,207