Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines C.B. Macpherson's reading strategies and interpretive assumptions in critically engaging texts in the tradition of political theory in English, centrally in Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It reflects upon the parallels and contrasts between Macpherson's critical procedures and the “immanent method” theorized and practised by Theodor Adorno as well as the deconstructive reading strategies made influential in literary studies through Jacques Derrida and Paul de Man. It attempts to bring out how Macpherson's reading strategies are acutely attentive to the logical, rhetorical, historical, and unconscious dimensions of language in the texts he engages. In these respects, his rigorously close readings, the article argues, provide an exemplary model for politicized critical engagements, one that potentially bridges formalism, deconstruction, and historicism – approaches that are too often rent asunder in contemporary literary and cultural criticism.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".