Philosophical tensions in the liberal tradition, constraints on the good life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liberal thought is embroiled in an endless philosophical debate. This debate is precipitated by inherent tensions in liberalism that appears to be irreconcilable with its end of individual freedom. The two main contenders in the debate are the "classic" and "progressive" liberals. The point of philosophical tension between the two groups is in regards to the proper parameters of government. The "classic" liberals argue that the government in a liberal state must be limited, while the "progressive" liberals assert the need for government intervention in the economy as a means of creating an even playing field for all individuals. The underpinnings of the debate are present in the initial liberal discourse and writing and have grown in scope in the twentieth century, culminating in a wealth of literature and the birth of liberal criticism. Liberal critics have had a significant impact on the interpretation and accept nce of liberalism as a useful political theory. They argue that liberalism is unable to meet its end of individual freedom, in either its "classic" or "progressive" forms. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.110 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".