Ideas, Ideologies and Public Consent: Introducing the Issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of consent is essential for every society society, affecting almost all its spheres - from everyday life to socio-political bases. Therefore, it cannot be considered accidental that both the idea itself and the diverse directions of its interpretation, dating back to the era of early modernity, today constitute one of the most priorities, intellectually saturated segments in modern socio-political theory. It is impossible to deny the appeal of the doctrine of personal consent (and the parallel thesis that no government is legitimate unless it acts without the consent of the governed). It has had a great influence on the political institutions of many modern states and has been a major factor in the direction that political theory has taken since 1600. In the second half of the 20th century, two approaches prevailed in political theory, within the framework of which the process of formation of the consensus tradition: personal and historical ones. The most impact to the theory is made by criticism of the unilinear model of consent analysis in the works of George Klosko, analysis by R.D. Bernstein of the problem of consent in the form of critical remarks on the philosophical position of R. Rorty, the concept of socialist “consent strategy” developed in the 1980s by E. Laclau and Sh. Mouffe, the controversy of the Canadian political philosopher James Tully with neo-Marxist theorists, the philosophical interpretation of consent by Jürgen Habermas as part of his analysis of the “rationalization paradox” etc. This theoretical and methodological frame becomes a basis for the thematic volume, where the articles on the history of socio-political thought are followed by the chapter devoted to the problems of Russia between cleavages and social harmony. Russian problems are blended with an international context, and the issue ends with an attempt to understand the ideological attitudes of modern youth.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".