Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liberal political theory is often accused of hindering the development of communities because it encourages people to be individualistic. As one of its founding fathers, critiques of liberalism date back to the writings of John Locke in the seventeenth century. This research project looks at the writings of Locke within their historical context. In examining Locke’s views on religious toleration, social policy and economics, this project proposes to show how Locke envisioned a particular form of community. This study also incorporates contemporary debates on liberalism. Specifically, it addresses communitarian critiques put forth by Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor, and invokes liberal defences, articulated by Will Kymlicka and Alan Buchannan. It proposes that many of today’s defences of liberal political theory can be applied to the writings of John Locke to support and sustain the development of communities within his own time. A second claim against liberal theory is that it favours particular communities instead of granting fair procedural rights to all communities. To test this objection, this project will also look at the biases from Locke’s religious, political and social backgrounds and how they impacted his beliefs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".