Bibliographic record
Abstract
In The Third Reich in Power: 1933–1939, Richard Evans pursues the theme that the Nazis used law, terror, and propaganda as ‘techniques of governance’ that would serve to Nazify Germany. Evans also provides support for the conclusion that the Nazis' claims to give expression to the life of a people's community (Volksgemeinschaft) were bogus. For the techniques of governance on which they relied established a ‘terror machine.’ Michael Oakeshott's account of ‘enterprise association’ affords a means by which to gain analytic purchase on Nazi Germany as a social formation. An enterprise association is highly instrumental and exhibits a lack of sensitivity to the interests of individuals and particular groups. Government uses the levers of power at its disposal to pursue an agenda into which it integrates the law's addressees. Assuming that Nazi Germany was an enterprise association, the misgivings concerning the concept of community expressed by many human-rights lawyers since World War II would seem to be overstated. While the Nazis made regular appeals to empirical community (Volksgemeinschaft), they worked assiduously to undermine ethical community. Ethical community is an ideal that specifies that law should adequately accommodate the interests of all those in the group it is supposed to serve. The Nazis' attitude toward ethical community indicates a lack of commitment to law in the narrow sense (as defined by Nigel Simmonds). But, in inducing patterns of obedience in those over whom they wielded power, the Nazis had a legal system in the wide sense (defined by Simmonds).
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".