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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay closely examines Hobbes’ underexplored discussion of legal theory in the Leviathan, and argues that Hobbes’ account of rule through law explains why he considered that sovereign power should be regarded as legitimate by the sovereign’s subjects. Whereas modern commentators on Leviathan have generally insisted on the supremacy of positive law, the author suggests that the more compelling interpretation of Hobbes’ text supports a natural law reading, where one's obligation to the sovereign is based not solely on his power to enact laws but also on his compliance with the laws of nature. Hobbes’ discussions of law reveal his constitutional theory, a theory of fundamental principles of legality that does not fit neatly into our contemporary categories of legal positivism and natural law. The author shows that, for Hobbes, political order is legal order — an order created by a sovereign who rules through law, but which necessarily complies with the laws of nature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.228 | 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 it