Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Contributes to contemporary debates about justice, multiculturalism, citizenship, and democratic theory. The book argues that the conventional liberal understanding of justice as neutrality needs to be supplemented by a conception of justice as evenhandedness. It also argues that theorists ought to pay attention to the moral wisdom that is sometimes embedded in practice. Claims about the moral relevance of culture and identity appear in many different forms in politics. There is no master principle that enables us to determine when we should respect such claims and when we should challenge them, but the idea of evenhanded justice often points us in the right direction. The book demonstrates this through a comparative and contextual analysis that pays close attention to the actual claims about culture and identity advanced by immigrants, national minorities, aboriginals, and other groups in a number of different societies. While the main focus is on a range of familiar and unfamiliar cases, the book includes an extended critical analysis of the work of Michael Walzer and Will Kymlicka. Finally, the book also contends that the conventional conception of citizenship is an intellectual and moral prison from which we can be liberated by adopting an understanding of citizenship that is more open to multiplicity and that grows out of practices that we judge, upon reflection, to be just and beneficial.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".