Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.This note explores the ambiguity in John Locke's assertion that “the great art of government” consists in the increase and right employment of “lands” or “hands.” The dominant interpretation is that Locke thought governmental practice should aim at the extension and proper cultivation of land, while others assert that, given the context of the labour theory of value and Locke's concern to increase population, a more suitable interpretation is that the great art of government consists in the maximal exploitation of “hands” or labourers. The case for both “lands” and “hands” is examined within the scholarly literature on Locke's egalitarianism and political economy, an argument for the minority favouring of “hands” over “lands” provided and its contemporary relevance explained. Résumé.Cette note analyse l'ambiguïté de l'assertion de John Locke selon laquelle «le grand art du gouvernement» consiste dans l'accroissement et l'exploitation convenable des terres («lands») ou de la main-d'oeuvre («hands»). L'interprétation dominante est que Locke pensait que la sage administration avait pour but la meilleure culture des terres («lands»), mais quelques savants lockiens, invoquant la théorie de Locke que toute valeur est le produit du travail et son intérêt pour la croissance de la population, privilégient plutôt une interprétation centrée sur l'exploitation de la main-d'oeuvre («hands»). L'auteur explore les deux optiques dans la littérature érudite sur l'égalité et l'économie politique de Locke, puis présente un raisonnement sur l'interprétation minoritaire centrée sur la main-d'oeuvre et en explique la pertinence dans le monde contemporain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".