Bibliographic record
Abstract
Michael Walzer's new book, Politics and Passion, is the attempt of a major liberal political theorist to modify the essentially triumphalist individualist thrust of much of liberalism. It is written in the spirit of the later work of John Rawls, who tried to listen to the communitarian critique of liberalism and then incorporate it in his more modest version of liberalism instead of letting it coopt liberalism. That effort, though, is much more carefully and extensively worked out by Walzer than by Rawls. Nevertheless, Walzer cannot accept any central normative role for religion in the life of a liberal polity, especially for the type of family-central, traditional community presented by Judaism and Christianity. Since most communitarians are religious, it is arguable whether they can accept the political role religion have been assigned in the liberal project by Walzer. Indeed, it can be argued that Walzer, like almost all liberals, assigns a much too ultimate role for freedom, making it the end of liberal striving and seeing it in opposition to and escape from more traditional forms of social life. It is thus argued that the individual freedom Walzer sees as transcending (although never completely) familial-religious community can be better achieved there, functioning more modestly and realistically as one of the best means to the common good and, therefore, not in opposition to it.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".