Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utility and Democracy: The Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham, Philip Schofield, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. ix, 370. This book is part of ongoing work to improve on what is known of how the influential utilitarian of the nineteenth century Jeremy Bentham became an articulate defender of representative democracy. Philip Schofield, director of the Bentham Project that holds a voluminous Bentham collection, has been with the project for the past twenty years. The prevailing view of interpreters was that Bentham became enthusiastic about democracy when observing the French Revolution but, following the violent turn of events in France from 1792 onwards, he substantially revised his initial optimism. Schofield's views do not coincide with those of earlier interpreters, such as J.R. Dinwiddy and E. Halevy that it might have been association with James Mill in 1808 that turned Bentham into a political radical. The evidence of passages from Bentham's writings indicates that the cause was Bentham's understanding around 1804 of “sinister interest.” His failed attempts to construct the panopticon led him to develop an account of sinister interest and to come to the conclusion that democracy is essential to the achievement of good government.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".