Popular Sovereignty or Cosmopolitan Democracy?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liberals have long disagreed about the nature and purposes of international reform. This article juxtaposes two recent research programmes that are premised on typically liberal assumptions and goals — democratic peace theory and the cosmopolitan democracy model. Two central claims are advanced. First, both of these liberal approaches are premised upon radically different depictions of Immanuel Kant's legacy — or at least what his legacy ought to mean to us today. These different conceptions of Kant's relevance suggest that his ambiguous status as a so-called `liberal' supports remarkably different forms of this ideology. Thus, Kant's legacy is not a neutral ground, but is rather a way in which older conflicts within liberalism are becoming reproduced in the post-Cold War era. The second argument is that the cosmopolitan democracy model is a superior vision of international reform because it transcends an anachronistic conception of `popular sovereignty' as the sole liberal means through which to produce freedom and peace.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 it