Introduction to the symposium on Ingrid Robeyns’s <i>Limitarianism</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In her book Limitarianism, Ingrid Robeyns draws attention to a specific type of moral response to inequality that is often ignored by social and political philosophers, even though it is widely experienced by the public. This is: condemnation of excess. The human capability for justice is based in part on a sense of fairness as proportionality, and the excessive wealth that we may witness both in history and in the contemporary world beggar any reasonable sense of proportionality. Meanwhile, Robeyns shows that excessive wealth also outrages other components of our sense of justice: our care and compassion for the well-being of others; our respect for freedom and aversion to domination; and our revulsion at ill-gotten gains. Three key questions raised by the contributors to this symposium might be highlighted: Where should we draw the ‘riches line’ that marks off excessive wealth? Can Western limitarianism harmonize with Asian philosophies such as Confucianism, which focus on social harmony in which there is enough for all? Why does Robeyns advocate for a cap on wealth as an ideal but not as a point in her practical program for action?
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it