Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its publication in 1971, John Rawls' A Theory of Justice has defined the terrain of political philosophical debate concerning the principles, scope, and material implications of social justice.Social justice for Rawls concerns the principles that govern the operation of major social institutions.Major social institutions structure the lives of citizens by regulating access to the resources and opportunities that the formulation and realization of human projects require.Rawls' theory of social justice regards major institutions as just when they distribute what he calls "primary goods" in a manner that he regards as egalitarian.Hence, the subsequent social justice debate has been shaped by and large as a debate about the meaning and implications of egalitarianism.While on the surface a debate about egalitarianism as a distributional principle seems to uncover the core problem of social justice-how much of what everyone should get as a matter of right-the entire history of the debate has been conducted in abstraction from what matters most to people's lives.It is as a corrective to such abstractions that the life-value approach to social justice has been developed.In this introduction I have three aims.First, I will substantiate the claim that the debate over social justice that has dominated political philosophy from Rawls until the present is abstracted from what ultimately matters.Second, I will provide a concise conceptual history of the development of life-value onto-axiology, defining its key terms and providing an overview of its importance for social justice.Finally, I will provide a brief discussion of the unifying principle of this special issue and each of the four papers that make it up. Primary Goods, Equality, and Life-ValueI claimed above that the mainstream philosophical debate concerning social justice initiated by Rawls is abstracted from what matters most to humanity.In order to substantiate this claim it is necessary to begin with a discussion of Rawls' theory itself.For Rawls social justice concerns the principles that regulate the way in which major social institutions distribute what he calls "primary goods."Primary goods are "things that every rational man is presumed to want.These goods normally have a
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".