MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077826159 · doi:10.1093/fs/kni102

Liberalism under Siege: The Political Thought of the French Doctrinaires

2005· article· en· W2077826159 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Alexander

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theory and Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiegePoliticsLiberalismHistoryClassicsMedia studiesReligious studiesArt historyPolitical scienceSociologyLawPhilosophyAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By Aurelian Craiutu. Lanham — Oxford, Lexington Books, 2003. xvii+337 pp. Hb $80.00. Pb $26.95. To rescue the Doctrinaires from obscurity in the study of political philosophy is a worthy, but difficult, undertaking because the Doctrinaires were both political theorists and leading politicians. Such a combination makes them especially interesting for those who like to ponder the relation between ideology and pursuit of material interest, but it also means that to appreciate Doctrinaire thought fully, one must be well informed of the historical context in which they wrote. Among the virtues of Liberalism are Aurelian Craiutu's close examination of a broad range of sources, his relation of Doctrinaire thought, particularly that of François Guizot, to the writings of authors such as Rousseau, Tocqueville and J. S. Mill, and, especially, his emphasis upon the diversity within liberalism. The Doctrinaires derived their theories from analysis of history, arguing that political systems must reflect social development, and from this seminal point they distinguished between social and political democracy. Whether such a distinction was as original as the author contends is doubtful: why else the line drawn between active and passive citizenship in the constitution of 1791? Nevertheless, Doctrinaire desire to vest sovereignty in reason, rather than in individual or collective will, was distinctive, enabling them to avoid equation of what is right with the simple will of the majority, while envisioning government in a more positive light than allegedly ‘classical’ liberals preoccupied by protection of individual rights. Indeed Doctrinaire pursuit of a balance of powers was based on recognition that government would become increasingly active in meeting the demands of society. To delimit the appropriate powers of government, the Doctrinaires stressed pluralism, publicity, and a representative system designed to bring the most rational elements to the fore as a political elite.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.025
Scholarly communication0.0160.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrench StudiesSame topicPolitical Theory and InfluenceFrench-language works237,207