Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past decade, political philosophers have increasingly deployed the concepts of interdependency, equality, and vulnerability to critique contemporary society. Widely popular both within and beyond academia, these concepts offer normative anchors enabling the critique of neoliberal ideals of individuality, independence, and resilience in the name of a more egalitarian society. Consequently, although many scholars denounce violence in existing society, they abstain from denouncing human beings’ interdependency, equality, vulnerability, and precariousness. To the contrary, these concepts are treated as grasping our fundamental, ontological condition. Indeed, their capacity to resist neoliberal illusions of atomistic independence purportedly arises from their ability to reveal the hidden truth that neoliberalism otherwise conceals: that human beings are ontologically interdependent and equal. This truth, then, is said to carry its own ethical principle, demanding the realization of equality through political action. The use of these concepts today thus mobilizes more than an ontology; it also offers an interpretation of existing society—as deviating from and concealing ontology—and a politics that seeks to organize society in accordance with ontology.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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".