Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent trend in political theory is the rise of conservative post-liberal thinkers; some, such as Patrick Deneen, appropriate Alasdair MacIntyre. They do so because MacIntyre has long been presented as a thinker who urges us to reject modernity and liberalism tout court, in favor of pre-modern theories and communities. In this essay I contend that MacIntyre’s thought diverges from conservative post-liberalism, with respect to claims about pre-modernity, modernity, and liberal political institutions. For MacIntyre, unlike for conservative post-liberals, pre-modernity fails to provide readily applicable theoretical and practical alternatives to liberal modernity. In the absence of alternatives MacIntyre holds that we must acknowledge that modernity, including liberal political institutions, has some resources to help us achieve human flourishing. Because MacIntyre acknowledges the defects of pre-modernity and the advantages brought by modernity, he is not a conservative post-liberal and can challenge conservative post-liberals to moderate their critique of liberal modernity.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".