The rights of national majorities: Toxic discourse or democratic catharsis?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper traces the hazards of a majority rights discourse. It argues that this discourse can become a platform for dominant groups to recognize in policies that disadvantage and exclude minorities a legitimate defense of majority rights. The first section examines two ways in which multicultural frameworks already privilege majority rights and interests. The second section distinguishes between legitimate majority entitlements and the demands of entitled majorities to retain their privilege and dominance. I argue that an entitled majority (1) considers itself to be inherently deserving of special treatment and thereby does not believe that minorities have genuine justice-based entitlements similar to its entitlements and (2) views itself as owed appreciation for the ways in which it waives its putative entitlements to accommodate minority interests. Evidence of these features can be found in current political struggles in Quebec and Switzerland.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it