MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412465836 · doi:10.1080/00948705.2025.2521281

J.S. Russell and the democratization of perfectionism

2025· article· en· W4412465836 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher C. Yorke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Philosophy of Sport · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Canadian institutionsLangara College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocratizationPerfectionism (psychology)Sociology of sportPsychologySociologyPsychoanalysisPolitical scienceSocial scienceDemocracySocial psychologyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key element of J.S. Russell’s intellectual oeuvre is his concern with perfectionism, the philosophical position which holds that the expression of uniquely human capacities is the source of moral value. One of the main axes of criticism of perfectionism is its inherent elitism: not all humans are equally efficacious or efficient capacity catalyzers, and thus on perfectionist grounds it makes sense to identify those who are unable to express a large range or depth of capacities as less valuable (in this specific sense of value) than those who are not. I take one of the main themes of Russell’s philosophical output to be a gentle and steady movement toward redressing perfectionist’s elitist bent through broadening what we count as virtues, and thereby democratizing the perfectionist position by making it more inclusive and accessible. I trace this development of Russell’s interest from his valorization of self-actualization through partaking in dangerous sport (accessible to very few of us), to his valorization of striving through gameplay and sport (accessible to the majority of us), and finally to his valorization of idleness (accessible to almost everyone). I assess whether Russell’s overall project succeeds in its apparent aim to rehabilitate perfectionism upon democratic lines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.040
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Philosophy of SportSame topicAcademic and Historical Perspectives in PsychologyFrench-language works237,207