De talen van de republiek. Een republikeinse theorie over taalrechtvaardigheid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout history humanity has been socially, economically and politically organised in very different ways. Each way has one element in common: codes of communication for each are an indispensable element of interaction. Communication is an intrinsically indispensable element of any collective endeavour, from a small family to a huge civilization. In general, human communication is fundamentally mediated by language. Therefore, language plays a major role for individuals as linguistically embedded beings in their inescapable relationships with other human beings. However, communicative codes have evolved in very different ways and for very different reasons all over the world, giving birth to thousands of different linguistic codes (or languages). Ethical and political dilemmas often arise from linguistic diversity in both theory and practice. The rise of English as a possible global lingua franca, the huge increase in immigration and refugee claims, and the (linguistic) claims of sub-state national minorities have been important topics from the late 20th Century onwards. The answer to these issues is the main goal of any philosopher involved in the so-called linguistic justice debate. This dissertation is centred on linguistically mixed societies, where several language groups share the same territorial space and live together in the same regions, cities and neighbourhoods. (i.e., the Valencian Country, Balearic Islands, Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia, Aosta Valley, Wales, Bolivia, Brussels, Quebec, Papua-New Guinea, Latvia, India, etc.). The fundamental question that I am intending to answer is: what normative principles should guide linguistically mixed societies in order to be linguistically just political communities? So far there are three mainstream liberal theories dealing with such cases: linguistic neutralism, linguistic nationalism and linguistic pluralism. Nonetheless, none have provided a completely convincing theory of linguistic justice for linguistically mixed societies. In this respect, this work is an attempt to construct the main foundations of a new and more normatively appealing approach to language politics: a republican theory of linguistic justice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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.
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".