MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083048379 · doi:10.1177/0971685820941996

The Normativity of Work: Lockean and Marxist Overlapping Consensus on Just Work

2020· article· en· W3083048379 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Human Values · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeMarxist philosophyCapitalismWork (physics)PoliticsSociologySet (abstract data type)EpistemologyLawLaw and economicsPolitical sciencePhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Work is an integral part of modern society. However, the question of the normative conditions that distinguish just from unjust work has been under-investigated in political theory. This article, by comparing the Lockean and Marxist views of just work, aims to show that a set of overlapping normative requirements of just work can be derived from them despite their polarized economic and political views. Locke has been appropriated by contemporary libertarians as the central figure of right-based libertarian market economy while Marx has been seen by the left as a central intellectual resource to criticize capitalism’s tendency for degrading work. Given this usual polarization, the article can shed light on a common set of normative requirements concerning just work between them. This overlapping set of normative requirements of just work invites reflections on possible common grounds of just work between the contemporary right and the left who have appropriated the two thinkers as their foundational theoretical building blocks.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.221 · 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