Bibliographic record
Abstract
This symposium on A. J. Simmons' book Boundaries of Authority (2016) comes at a propitious time.Political theorists have come to recognize that territoryby which I mean the geographic domain of the state -has been under-theorized in the past, and this is a serious omission.We cannot theorize the state by focusing purely on the relationship between the state and citizens, but must also justify state authority over territory.This is important, not only to have a complete political theory of the state and the international order, but also because many of the conflicts that loom large in the modern world are ones that implicate territory.Political theorists have to grapple with justificatory arguments over territory in order to give a non-arbitrary answer to such questions as how to justify state control over borders, and over resources, how to draw boundaries in cases of contested territory, and what kinds of territorial claims, if any, secessionists are entitled to make.This was argued by A. J. Simmons in a series of early work, beginning in the 1990s (1992, 1995, 2001, 2003), when hardly anyone else was concerned with territory.His early work has been hugely influential in defining the terms and central questions on which all contemporary political theorists of territory draw.More recently, at least since the publication of Kolers and Nine's books in 2009 and 2012, respectively, a number of theorists have taken up this challenge of theorizing territory, and we now have a number of contending theories of territory, which have all used Simmons' analytical categories as a starting point for their arguments.Boundaries of Authority is the most compelling and complete statement of a broadly Lockean theory of territory, with a powerful critique of the dominant Kantian argument.In it, Simmons argues that state authority over territory has to be justified historically, and not purely functionally.His discussion of the destruction and displacement of indigenous rights, and the failure of functionalist understandings of state territory to theorize this wrong, is both powerful and compelling.He places individual and community consent at the centre of his account of political legitimacy, thus connecting with his earlier work (Simmons, 1992(Simmons, , 2001) for which he is justly famous, on state legitimacy.Simmons' positive argument is that state justifications for authority over territory rest on the states' claimed authority over persons, and that we can connect the former with the latter through an historical discussion that is related to individual and collective property claims.This draws inspiration from Locke, who also focused on consent to legitimize the authority of the state.In Locke's account, a legitimate state is formed when property-holders consent to government, and this consent is the consent
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.007 |
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".