Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a political-philosophical standpoint, liberalism has its roots in its focus on individuals’ negative liberty, which entails the removal of any obstacle that might potentially hinder their actions. As Bobbio (1978) suggests, our agency can be limited at a social level by customary, legislative or moral norms. We can define the entirety of these norms as the nomos driving our day-to-day actions. Liberal thinkers usually argue that the state should regulate citizens’ lives as little as possible. From this perspective, they seem to be mostly concerned with setting people free from the invasive nomos of public institutions. However, is this political approach genuinely liberal? Based on the original, and thus genuine, meaning of the term nomos, the answer is no. A real safeguarding of negative liberty should be aimed at the removal of any nomos curtailing people’s independence, not just the nomos of the state. Within the context of the informal economy, for instance, poverty, marginality and precarious work have grown into veritable rules. When seen from this perspective, workers’ disadvantage is indeed a nomos regulating, restricting, and limiting individual agency. Why has liberalism failed to promote the removal of this kind of nomos that curtails people’s negative liberty with equal strength as that of the state? Is deregulation truly the solution to all the ills of the market? Should those who self-identify as liberals oppose or embrace a public nomos working against the spread of the nomos of job insecurity? This work claims that a genuinely liberal approach should be based on an etymological and broader understanding of the term nomos. It will also examine how private enterprises can favor the spread of this approach and safeguard workers’ negative liberty.
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 | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".