Who’s afraid of the people? The debate between political agoraphobia and political agoraphilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do the people have the political capacity to rule themselves, or do they need to be ruled by an elite for ‘the common good’? In order to clarify this question, I introduce two concepts: political agoraphobia and political agoraphilia. I begin by briefly explaining the tension between two attitudes toward the people: love and fear. I then systematically set out the arguments and counter-arguments on both sides of the controversy. The debate seems to end up in a rhetorical deadlock, since both the people and the elite may be seen as irrational, vulnerable to demagoguery, and factious. I therefore suggest that what is mainly at stake is not to demonstrate whether the people are to be trusted or not with regard to their political capacities. What is at stake, rather, is the recognition that this debate subsumes a fundamental political struggle between the desire for domination and the desire for egalitarian freedom, as well as the willingness to acknowledge the philosophical significance of democratic and popular political experiences.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".