Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper advances the argument that the capacity of any state to apply democratic principles is seriously constrained by the competing demands of nationalism as the formative ideology of the contemporary geo-political order. To build this argument, the paper begins with a brief examination of notions of democracy and issues of neutrality. In demonstrating that democratic systems are not neutral, emphasis is placed on the ways in which the prevailing privacy of nation-states intrinsically imposes limits on the application of democratic principles. More specifically, I draw on the experiences of Native People in Canada, to show how the entrenched need to promote a singular nation allows hegemonic views and practices to become embedded in purportedly democratic policies and systems in ways which reduce the capacity to apply democratic principles. In contrast a brief overview of the development of the Territory of Nunavut in the Canadian North shows how active acknowledgement of pluralism at a more systemic level can at least temper some of the intrinsic limitations of democracies based on nation-states. This peripheral experience clearly suggests that the quality of a democracy, rather than the existence of a singular nation, may be the best means of evaluating claims to power in the form of a state.
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 | 0.024 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".