The problems of popular democracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The curricular goals, texts and methods of analysis employed by university educators reflect disciplinary knowledge through the specific methods they purport to teach, the substantive topics they examine and the citations to existing literature they provide. This thesis will examine the curricular goals, popular texts, theoretical methods, philosophical base, pedagogy, sociology and theoretical methodology employed by educators' teaching popular democratic theory to undergraduate students', in selected Canadian, American and British universities. It will argue, that the knowledge content and methods of analysis, being taught to students' studying popular democratic theory in the curriculum statements examined, were clearly defined by a 'pre determined epistemology' derived from traditional normative and historically-based political theory, elitist forms of western knowledge categorization, and forms of argumentation. I will suggest, that democratic theory and political philosophy must not be taught and learnt as a mere chronological inventory of ideas, but as a dialogic method to compare ideas, events, speeches and forms of institutional engineering. This requires that students are introduced to the literature produced by contemporary critical social theorists' and radical democratic theorists. I will argue, that this method of critique and constant comparison will provide students with the necessary tools to problematise the idea of liberal democratic theory, so that they can begin to confront both the outdated curricular content and disciplinary biases disclosed by this thesis. I will argue, that the direction of undergraduate students to meta-theoretical mediums of analysis and deconstruction is the only way to protect them against the unconscious and cognitively nullifying effects of false consciousness.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".