Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book was truly a long time in the making.As work started, I felt compelled to learn what Carlo Cattaneo had to say about fundamental issues in the art and practice of self-governance during the Risorgimento, at the time of the creation of the Italian state; as my interest in Cattaneo grew, his political theory became another book project.While work on the present manuscript slowed down and proceeded fitfully, work on Cattaneo took me in directions in political philosophy and comparative inquiry I never expected.But it was only after several years, as I tried to contain the Cattaneo study within manageable limits, that I realized Cattaneo had given me a better grip on what observers have characterized again and again as "the paradox of Italy" -poor government performance in contrast with successes across a broad array of human endeavour.By providing an historical context to understanding contemporary Italian democracy, Cattaneo also freed me from having to do an entire history of the Italian state from the Risorgimento to the present.(My main focus is post-1946 politics.)I thus put aside Cattaneo and returned with renewed enthusiasm to the earlier project: to construct an argument for thinking differently about poor government performance in contemporary Italy.A fortuitous encounter with Stephen L. Elkin at a Liberty Fund Colloquium on Robert D. Putnam's Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (1993), organized by W. B. Allen in Oakland, California, in January 1996, led me to rediscover Elkin's book City and Regime in the American Republic (1987) and to invigorate the making of my own.Now Elkin's insistence on treating political institutions as
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.363 | 0.244 |
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".