Bibliographic record
Abstract
he appeal of freedom, or independence, is universally rooted in the experience of frustration in the face of countless limitations imposed by natural and unnatural causes.No one would willingly be prevented from acting to achieve desired ends.Manu, a Hindu lawgiver whose teachings were compiled in Manusmrti some time between the second century B. C. E. and the second century C. E., believed that the happiness arising from freedom exceeds all other sorts of happiness.He discussed the distinction between happiness and unhappiness: "Whatever is under someone else's control-that is suffering; whatever is under one's own control-that is happiness."1Self-sufficiency was as much admired by early societies as by modern ones.It was prescribed by Manu himself as a way of avoiding pain: "He should carefully avoid all activities that are under someone else's control, and diligently pursue those that are under his own control."2But because all things in this world are interdependent, perfect autonomy is impossible.This restriction arises not only because of external circumstances but also because people seek their own highest ends, which they can accomplish only by impeding those of other people.And they do so often, maybe always, by applying psychological, physical, political, or economic power.The purpose of the state, according to Manu, is therefore to save society from falling into chaos.3In other words, the purpose of law is to make sure that the weak can live happily without being overpowered by the strong.To ensure safety at a very personal level, he considered everyone an inseparable constituent of society and accountable to it; the latter, in turn, would be responsible for the behavior of its members within the larger unity.Abb£ Dubois, who spent much of his life in the Deccan and the Madras Presidency as a missionary, observed this interrelationship and the need to maintain 1. Olivelle 4.160.2. Olivelle 4.159.3. Olivelle 7.3.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.395 | 0.192 |
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".