Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper assesses Phillip Pettit’s claim that neo-republicanism offers a coherent approach for our contemporary political landscape. I challenge the view that non-domination can serve as singular ideal of government and that republicanism offers a superior alternative to the liberal framework. I argue that Pettit’s homogenizing and monistic account of oppression as domination is problematic, as it fails to capture legitimate forms of injustice and relevant claims for redress. To demonstrate this, I develop J.S. Mill’s account of social oppression as a paradigmatic case of the injustices that republicanism is incapable of adequately addressing. Such forms of oppression cannot be identified by the narrow conception of domination that republicanism provides, nor can these exclusions be effectively contested when the language of non-domination reigns. Only by moving to a more plural set of ideals can we accommodate the diversity of voices in modern society and attend to the multiple forms of injustice that must be addressed. But doing so erodes the clear distinction between neo-republican theory and the family of values that we associate with the liberal tradition, in effect re-casting republicanism as a far less radical break.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".