MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W179789493 · doi:10.1093/0199257361.003.0005

Emotions and the Intelligibility of Akratic Action

2003· book-chapter· en· W179789493 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christine Tappolet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsJudgementIntelligibility (philosophy)PerceptionPsychologyAction (physics)Social psychologyCognitive psychologyEpistemologyPhilosophyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract What is the role of emotions in akratic action? Proposing that emotions are non‐conceptual perceptions of values, the author argues that such states have the capacity not just to cause but also to render intelligible actions that are contrary to one's better judgement. Akratic actions prompted by an emotion may even be more rational than following one's evaluative judgement, for the perception might enable the agent to better track the reasons she has, compared to the judgement. By contrast, akratic actions in which no emotion is involved (cases of ‘cool’ akrasia) are genuinely puzzling and of dubious intelligibility.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.188
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.125 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations68
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207