Applying Rawls globally : extending the Rawlsian framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intention of this thesis is to illustrate that there are indirect processes in place within the liberal-democratic state system, in countries like New Zealand and Canada, that serve to maintain and justify its right to make decisions, regarding the allocation of power and resources within society. When the right of the liberal-democratic state to make these decisions is challenged, these processes help to channel these challenges away from its foundations. This ensures that while the shape of the state may well alter as a result, the belief system at the core of the state remains uncompromised. An example of such a challenge is the change in governments in New Zealand since 1972, each with different ideological ideas about how to implement economic reforms. The capacity of the electoral system to limit the impact of such governments by providing the 'people' with the choice of electing a new government every three years, means that the system has what Beetham refers to as a, "in-built self-correction when the movement in one direction tends to get out of hand" (Beetham 1991 p170). While reforms, such as the devolution program of the 1984 Labour Government may alter the role of the liberal-democratic state in relation to the public good, the belief system at the heart of the state remains unaltered; the idea of popular sovereignty for example. Additionally, this thesis argues that these indirect processes ensure that the belief system of liberal-democracy remains the primary belief system in such societies, in terms of its ability to structure the way in which resources and power are allocated. For example by promoting the capitalist economic system with its emphasis upon individualism.
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 | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".