MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028181666

Why Alasdair MacIntyre is not a Conservative Post-Liberal

2019· article· en· W3028181666 on OpenAlex
Nathan Pinkoski

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Political Science Reviewer · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHannah Arendt's Political Philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModernityLiberalismPoliticsFlourishingPolitical philosophySociologyPhilosophyLawEpistemologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it