Bibliographic record
Abstract
“A Note on Locke's ‘Great Art of Government’” presents a valuable and provocative argument that scholars have hitherto paid insufficient attention to an important ambiguity in John Locke's frustratingly brief account of the “great art of government” in the crucial fifth chapter of the Second Treatise of Government (Locke, 1960: sec. 42, l. 23). However, there is one pivotal point upon which the note's analysis may conceal as much as it reveals, and in order to frame the debate properly it is important to establish clarity about the nature of the possible ambiguity in Locke's description of the goal of the political art being “the increase of lands,” or alternatively the “increase of hands.” Following John Gough's suggestion (Locke, 1966: 23, n. 1), the note maintains that the context of the passage in section 42 of the Second Treatise relating to the “great art of government” favours the use of hands rather than lands (Locke, 1960: sec. 42, ll. 22–23). However, there is strong evidence indicating that the context of this passage is not what the note suggests it is.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".