Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the introductory pages of Political Philosophy, Beiner lays out his template for political philosophy. Political philosophers participate in an ongoing dialogue about “rival conceptions of the good” (xvi). “If we do not at least aspire to a theory that presents itself as more rationally compelling than all alternative views, it is hard to see how we can do theory at all” (xxvii). Because Beiner holds this view that a political philosopher aims for a comprehensive picture, he spends a lot of time in these first pages explaining why Isaiah Berlin cannot count as a political philosopher (because Berlin refuses to judge among competing conceptions of the good). A second prologue Beiner devotes to considerations on Freud and Weber. He calls them “epic” theorists (xxix), but they are more than epic: they are tragic. It is in these pages—of prologue no. 2—that we get the keenest insight into what Beiner really thinks political philosophy is. Freud is an Enlightenment rationalist but at the same time a “deep and uncompromising pessimist.” Weber appeals to Beiner because he held that one needs as a scholar “the courage to make up [one's] mind about [one's] ultimate standpoint” (xlix), even while acknowledging that we live in a “brutally disenchanted world” (l). Resolution in the face of tragedy is the core of political philosophy for Beiner.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| 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".