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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The boundary problem in political theory concerns the question of the constitution of the demos, and the principle(s) and/or mechanism(s) that may be permissibly used for its demarcation. But what are the linguistic terms in which such demarcation acts should take place? I contend that the boundary problem is nested within a linguistic boundary problem, and that a normative consideration on the constitution of the demos cannot avoid the need to address the question of its linguistic constitution, particularly on the part of ‘talk-centric’ deliberative approaches to democratic citizenship and inclusion. I argue that conceptualising the demos in pre-linguistic, non-linguistic or otherwise linguistically-unaware terms has substantive and adverse implications for its legitimacy claims. I conclude the interrogation of the boundary problem and its linguistic variant by proposing a shift from an abstracted notion of communicative rationality, towards a more situated communicative linguistic and political culture, grounded in linguistic epistemic humility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it