R<scp>OBERT</scp>A. D<scp>AHL'S</scp>P<scp>HILOSOPHY OF</scp>D<scp>EMOCRACY</scp>, E<scp>XHIBITED IN</scp>H<scp>IS</scp>E<scp>SSAYS</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
▪ Abstract Dahl's collected essays give more weight to his achievements as a philosopher of democracy than to his empirical investigations. Nevertheless, they clearly reflect his habit of working close to empirical facts, in particular the problems created for democratic practices by the size of modern political societies, their pluralism, and their intricate involvement with capitalism. His trenchant account, under the head of “polyarchy,” of basic democracy, of the further criteria for full democracy, and of the conditions for achieving democracy at both these levels has established the current standard for discussing democratic theory. Moreover, he clears the way for continuing hope for democracy by demolishing (by arguments supported by observations) the ruling-elite model and advances the prospects of democracy by championing a variety of jurisdictional arrangements for citizens' participation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".