Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distributive Justice and Access to Advantage is the most recent anthology devoted to the work of the great and, sadly, late political philosopher G.A. Cohen. Whereas other anthologies published since his passing have been comprised of Cohen's own work, this anthology, edited by Alexander Kaufman, presents us with a series of essays about Cohen's work. The volume's impressive roster of contributors will raise readers’ hopes, and I don't think those expectations are likely to be dashed: the chapters in Distributive Justice achieve a high level of sophistication, and most of them have not been previously published. Though I didn't know Cohen personally, I'm sure he would have been happy with the careful attention Distributive Justice's authors devote to understanding his views, as well as with their insightful commentary. Distributive Justice is broken up into three sections, each of which is devoted to a different theme in Cohen's work. The first mostly concerns methodological views that Cohen defended in the later part of his career: namely (a) that fundamental normative principles are ‘fact-insensitive’ or justified independently of factual reasons, and (b) that the concept of justice is located at the level of fact-insensitive principles, rather than at the level of derivative, action-guiding principles (Cohen calls the latter ‘rules of regulation’). The second section is primarily concerned with Cohen's luck egalitarian conception of fairness, i.e., his view that distributive fairness obtains if and only if there are no involuntary inequalities. The third is about matters of political practice. Issues addressed in this last section include the extent to which a number of the values Cohen champions (particularly fairness, freedom, community, and efficiency) can feasibly be implemented in unison, as well as which institutional arrangements (socialist or capitalist?) would best serve to implement them.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".