Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter explores two important historical sources inspiring the Dignitarian Approach. It starts with a discussion of Immanuel Kant’s moral and political philosophy, in which dignity plays a central role, and then shows its relevance for articulating and developing in a fresh way some normative dimensions of Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism as involving exploitation, domination, and alienation, as well as the view of socialism as featuring a combination of freedom and solidarity. What is recommended here is not Kant’s own conception of dignity, but an account that partly builds on that conception and partly criticizes it. For example, although the chapter endorses Kant’s view of dignity as a fundamental, non-conventional, and egalitarian status of persons, it challenges his narrow view of the basis of dignity which only concentrates on certain capacities for reasoning as well as his insufficient characterization of human well-being. The same is the case with the account of socialism in relation to Marx’s work. Although the chapter highlights the significance of his critique of the domination, exploitation, and alienation of workers, and salutes his positive view of socialism as form of society that overcomes them, it challenges his neglect of explicit and sustained exploration of the moral grounds of social critique and emancipatory practice. As articulated, Kantian dignity and Marxian socialism turn out to be quite appealing and mutually supportive.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".