Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract The term 'West' is problematic. It is often used to refer to the group of countries that supposedly share general common cultural features; it includes Europe and all those countries (like the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) whose populations include many people descended from European colonists and the different indigenous communities. That not all their inhabitants share the same cultural features makes these countries internally heterogeneous. The term 'Western political theory' is equally troublesome. It is used to indicate a specific cluster of intellectual traditions that supposedly differ from another set of political theories, the 'non-Western' political theories. However, such division reduces rich debates to intellectual flatness; it leads to the mistaken impression that the boundaries between intellectual traditions were less porous than what they were in reality. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, this distinction perpetrates a hegemonic power relation in which 'Western political theory' occupies a privileged position in the academic field of political theory, with the power of even defining the very name of the other traditions as 'non-Western'.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.097 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".