Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this Critical Notice I argue that the real disagreement between Cohen and Rawls turns on two things: whether the correct characterization of justice and other political values itself requires appeal to the concept of a rule of conduct, and whether distributive equality is a requirement imposed by the idea of a scheme of fair social cooperation, or it is a value, simply as such. Cohen’s ingenious arguments about the fact-independence of principles or the difference between justice and other values is actually relevant to these two disputes, and Cohen’s arguments against the difference principle and the basic structure presuppose the latter position in each of the disputes. Rawls wants to know what claims cooperating members of the society are entitled to press against each other solely in virtue of their status as cooperating members of that society. Cohen takes the fact that they are cooperating members of the society to be merely incidental to the basis of their claims, and so concludes that the claims of justice that persons have against each other to have nothing to do with social cooperation. He does not conceive of society as a system of social cooperation constituted by rules as having any independent normative significance; it has at most factual significance, as a sort of parameter around which well-motivated agents organize their attempts to achieve non-institutional justice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".