Bibliographic record
Abstract
The remainder of the book concentrates on different ways of studying political theory. At the risk of considerable oversimplification, two ‘pure’ modes or approaches can be identified: the philosophical and the historical . In reality, scholarly endeavours lie somewhere between the two ideal types, most being closer to the philosophical than to the historical. This chapter generalizes about the philosophical mode from the critical perspective of my version of the historical approach outlined in the next chapter. Chapter 7 is my estimate of the value for studying political theory of one variety of the historical mode, Marxism, which today in a time of capitalist triumphalism and socialist decline is in my opinion unjustifiably belittled and increasingly discounted. Although my preference for the historical over the philosophical will become progressively apparent, the evaluation of the latter should certainly not be misconstrued as completely negative or unreasonably dismissive. The two modes are by no means antithetical in spite of my criticism of philosophy and the philosophical. Each approach can fruitfully supplement the other, and when joined together can make the most rewarding contribution to the examination of political theory. My sole purpose has been to make a case for more historical analysis and to right what I take to be an intellectual imbalance: a prejudice in contemporary scholarship in favour of the philosophical mode, although some of it passes as historical. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".