Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reputation matters. This is the general consensus among social scientists on matters ranging from judgments about the character of political candidates to the image nation-states project to domestic and foreign audiences. And this is as it should be in democratic polities that run on opinion, for reputation is a species of opinion. But reputation is also a cause of concern for democratic citizens. We worry that political appearances are highly artificial, stage-managed affairs and that the rhetoric of people power is mere window dressing for what is in fact rule by elites. Our concerns find an echo in the fourth-century bce democratic Athens and, specifically, in the dialogues of Plato. This book works with and through Plato’s writings to proceed from an initial and rather cynical view of reputation as a concern of the few, to a more optimistic one about its potential in a democratic context. It shows Plato’s interlocutors engage the many by either undermining their judgment or by challenging it. Whereas prominent Athenian citizens such as Socrates in the Apology and Gorgias undermine demotic judgment and diminish its value, marginal citizens such as the philosopher in the Theaetetus and noncitizen residents such as Cephalus of Syracuse challenge the many while still seeking their praise, thereby permitting reputation’s demotic potential to emerge. The non-democratic constitutions Plato outlines also bear witness to the demotic power of reputation, an ancillary to philosophical rule in the Republic and central to the mixed constitution of the Laws.
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 | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.046 |
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".