MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334747101 · doi:10.1163/17455243-01302006

Can Minimal Autonomy Legitimate Coercive Institutions?

2016· article· en· W2334747101 on OpenAlex
Peter Dietsch

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Moral Philosophy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Peace and Security Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyLaw and economicsAutonomyArgument (complex analysis)Context (archaeology)Political scienceOrder (exchange)Bridge (graph theory)CertificationEpistemologySubject (documents)LawSociologyPositive economicsEconomicsComputer sciencePhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The central thesis of Hassoun’s book states that coercive international institutions, in order to be legitimate, must ensure sufficient autonomy for those subject to them. While part i analyses the theoretical structure of this argument, part ii aims to assess its practical implications in the contexts of aid and trade. This effort to bridge the gap between theory and practice is welcome, even though the connection could be strengthened further. At the core of Hassoun’s theoretical stance lies the innovative idea of a sufficientarian account of the legitimacy of coercive institutions. This review suggests that, in contrast to a sufficientarian theory of the just distribution of material resources, relying on a sufficientarian view in the context of legitimacy is more controversial. Following the discussion of some more specific theoretical issues, the review closes with an evaluation of Hassoun’s proposal of a fair trade certification system for pharmaceutical companies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it