MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059818424 · doi:10.1177/1468796811431297

Peoples, political liberalism and religious diversity

2012· article· en· W2059818424 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Seymour

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnicities · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsLiberalismArgument (complex analysis)SociologyClassical liberalismBalance (ability)Political scienceMinority rightsLawDiversity (politics)Law and economicsHuman rightsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article I first develop a particular definition of misrecognition understood as a particular kind of political resistance to formally institutionalized rights of persons and peoples. It is exemplified in the refusal to move from moral rights to legal rights. I therefore provide an institutional and not a psychological account of misrecognition. In the second part of the article, I present political liberalism and I show how it is able to accommodate the rights of persons and peoples. In the third and last part of the article, I examine one particular argument that affects ethno-religious groups in particular. With the help of the theoretical resources of political liberalism, I am in a position to achieve a delicate balance between the recognition of the individual rights of persons and the collective rights of peoples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.048
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnicitiesSame topicPolitical Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207