Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inequalities in wealth are a major concern in societal debates today (Atkinson, 2015;Piketty, 2014).Economic analyses abound showing that wealthy individuals and corporations can achieve commanding heights in the economy.They dominate more vulnerable parties, such as workers, consumers, members of less developed countries, the natural environment, and democracy itself (Christophers, 2019;Eeckhout, 2021;Mazzucato, 2018).How to respond to private owners imposing widespread negative effects on non-owners?Liberal-democratic theory and practice responds to this problem of ownership power by subjecting owners to the power of the state.The state apparatus is called upon to regulate owners in the public interest.Through state regulation imposed on owners, the interests of non-owners are represented indirectly.I call this "the regulation model."The main claim of this paper is that liberal-democratic theory and practice should end its exclusive reliance on the regulation model and expand its toolkit of representation with an "incorporation model."Under this model, non-owner interests are represented directly, by those who are owners, when they make decisions about how to use their assets.In most cases, this requires that property is incorporated, that is, transferred to a corporate legal structure, in which owners are held to account by non-owners.Representation is a key notion in political philosophy, expressing the demand that political rulers should rule in the interest of citizens, who can hold them to account for doing so.The present paper offers a systematic application of this concept to the powers granted with ownership.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".