MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412586374 · doi:10.1057/s41296-025-00769-6

New perspectives on Judith Shklar

2025· article· en· W4412586374 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Buxton, Samuel Bagg, David Enoch, Shal Marriott, Samuel Moyn

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Political Theory · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical philosophyCritical theorySociologyEpistemologyPsychoanalysisPsychologyPhilosophyPoliticsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In my conversations with students, I often end up asking if they have heard of Judith Shklar.Almost none of them have; she is rarely taught in undergraduate philosophy or politics departments, but she becomes known to many of us once we are a little older and wiser.My own PhD supervisor recommended that I read Shklar in the first weeks of my doctorate, and she has continued to shape and challenge my work ever since.Of course, Shklar has not been "ignored" or "forgotten," but she has remained a niche interest.Most know her for her famous essay "The Liberalism of Fear" (1989) in which she argues in favor of a liberalism centered around a summum malum, rather than a positive doctrine of justice or civic virtue.She is certainly not as wellcelebrated as the other great political theorists and philosophers of her time such as Isaiah Berlin, John Rawls, and Michael Walzer, all of whom she considered friends.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.047
Scholarly communication0.0140.014
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0130.032
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Political TheorySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207