MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104568640 · doi:10.7202/014584ar

Sovereignty between Effectiveness and Legitimacy

2007· article· en· W2104568640 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEurostudia · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSovereigntyLegitimacyState (computer science)EpistemologyLaw and economicsOrder (exchange)SociologyPower (physics)Popular sovereigntyPolitical sciencePerspective (graphical)LawPoliticsComputer scienceEconomicsPhilosophyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to a widespread understanding, the idea and the reality of state-sovereignty are in crisis, and may even have come to an end. The state is becoming a “cooperative” state which is no longer capable of imposing its will, and is thus but one social actor among others. This diagnosis relies on a concept of sovereignty which is basically defined by the capacity of the state to organize and rule society. The present article inquires into the conceptual basis of this kind of description, analysis and critique. Are we dealing with an appropriate analysis of current developments? Are the dimensions of state sovereignty, associated in historical and systematic perspective, adequately described? In order to answer these questions the article goes back to the foundations of modern sovereignty, its practical dimensions and its concomitant problems as outlined in Bodin, Hobbes and Rousseau.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.226 · 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