Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article conceptualizes academic freedom as a form of social contract, grounded in what is termed the republic of dissent. This concept rests on two pillars: a republican tradition of resisting the accumulation and centralization of power, and a classical liberal emphasis on protecting the ability to think and dissent freely. The republic of dissent model helps clarify the relationship between freedom of expression and academic freedom, which are often conflated as a matter of constitutional usage. While universities contain free speech zones, this article argues that the university, as an institution, is more accurately understood as a decentralized system designed to allow academic competition while preserving dissent. From this perspective, not all versions of freedom of expression will necessarily be compatible with academic freedom. Classical liberal versions—which treat expression as a paramount community value and require institutional content-neutrality—are consistent with the republic of dissent. In contrast, balancing models that give equal weight to competing values and rely on officials to conduct content-based scrutiny to prevent social harm are likely incompatible with academic freedom.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".