The Legitimacy of Inequality on Both Sides of The Atlantic. A comparative Analysis of Attitudes in Canada and Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All societies contain organized inequalities, although to a different degree. The amount of equality possible and beneficial for societal wellbeing and the magnitude of inequality tolerable, acceptable and required as a prerequisite for competition and growth are questions continuing at the centre of sociological as well as political debates. Inequality concems the differential allocation of resources and rewards between social locations. Since resources and rewards associated with social statuses are major determinants of opportw1ities available to status occupants, social inequalities reflect also differences in power, which affects both people's welfare and the respect they receive (Sennett 2003). Persans in inferior social locations are more likely to experience both deprivation and insolence; those in privileged positions relative comfort and admiration. The central importance of inequalities to life chances requires that such differences be legitimated. It creates problems for privileged and deprived groups, including tensions and conflicts within the society as a whole, if evident inequalities are perceived as illegitimate, unfair or unjust. Thus, social inequalities need continuons legitimation, which, however, can only come from abstract cultural scripts that need to be transformed into social nom1s and institutional mechanisms.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".