MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545548164 · doi:10.22329/il.v34i3.4112

Deduction without Dogmas:The Case of Moral Analogical Argumentation

2014· article· en· W1545548164 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lilián Bermejo-Luque

Bibliographic record

VenueInformal Logic · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación
KeywordsArgumentation theoryEpistemologySchema (genetic algorithms)CriticismSociologyPsychologyPhilosophyComputer scienceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

a recent paper, Fábio Perin Shecaira (2013) proposes a defence of Waller’s deductivist schema for moral analogical argumentation. This defence has several flaws, the most important of them being that many good analogical arguments would be deemed bad or deficient. Additionally, Shecaira misrepresents my alternative account as something in between deductivism and non-deductivism. This paper is both an attempt at solving this misunderstanding and an analysis and criticism of Waller and Shecaira’s forms of deductivism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.047
Scholarly communication0.0110.026
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0140.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformal LogicSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207