Bibliographic record
Abstract
First, I would note that I am writing of An ethics, not The ethics: as a possible way of, a possible norm for, pursuing work in philosophy. I might even take the word ethics out entirely and simply talk of an ethos. Why am I quibbling over the word ethics? Because some traditions of philosophy even dispute the relevance of ethics to the pursuit of philosophy, or reduce the meaning of the word to a minimal meaning unacceptable to most schools of philosophy. Ethos? Perhaps just “a strategy” would be acceptable to all? But even that is a debated issue. There are views on philosophy that emphasize its random character in a way that is not even thinking of the creative role of such randomness. Think of the view that regards philosophic work as anarchic. Why do I begin an essay with such an apparently positive title in this fashion? Because in this essay I wish us all to arrive at an extremely minimalist operative view of philosophic work, one that nonetheless would be beneficial to most schools or brands of philosophic work. Beginning the essay with the title used here serves to clear up this and other features of this endeavor. What is ethics? There we have a question disputed among philosophers, constituting ongoing debates between various traditions. I start with suggested modifications of the title so as
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".