Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first thing that needs to be said about Leo Strauss is that he is set apart from the other theorists treated in this book insofar as attitudes toward him divide between those who demonize him and those who worship him. For his followers, he is the definitive guide to how one does political philosophy – the “only Star and compass,” to borrow a phrase of Locke’s. For those who demonize him, he is a kind of Rasputin who secretly pulls the strings of world events, even to the extent of inspiring a war that erupted thirty years after his death! Let me say very directly that neither of these polarized attitudes – demonizing, worshipping – is an appropriate way to respond intellectually to a political philosopher, and in what follows, I am determined to treat him exactly as I treat the other thinkers who figure in this book – by giving him credit for helpful insights and criticizing him (exactly as we criticize the others) when he produces ideas that come up short with respect to coherence or persuasiveness. That is, he should be treated on exactly the same level as all the others, as neither a beast nor a god, borrowing this time a phrase of Aristotle’s.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".