Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter focuses on Taylor’s account of the politics of recognition and the broad debates that his essay on multiculturalism stimulated. Taylor was responding to the new politics of identity and the contestation over the implications of cultural diversity, especially in multicultural societies like Canada and Australia. Taylor is shown to bring his own theoretical framework to bear on these topics and to emphasize the cultural underpinnings of identity politics in the values of equal respect and equal dignity. Taylor’s highlighting the broad background experiences of democratic forms of social association is somewhat similar, we argue, to that of Alexis de Tocqueville on democracy and democratisation. Taylor’s reworking of aspects of Tocqueville’s diagnoses of modern society’s potential for ‘democratic despotism’ and the paradoxes of individualism are evaluated. Whilst acknowledging the significance of Taylor’s contributions to theories of recognition and democracy, the critical responses to Taylor’s accounts are outlined and his conceptions are compared with later discussions of these themes, particularly those by Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth. Taylor’s updating of his perspective on recognition and recent analysis of current tendencies for ‘democratic exclusion’ and their remedies are assessed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".