MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974941877 · doi:10.1017/s0012217311000345

L’éthique de la vertu et le critère de l’action correcte

2011· article· fr· W1974941877 on OpenAlex
Martin Gibert, Mauro Rossi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogue · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ : Selon la version de l’éthique de la vertu la plus répandue (Hursthouse, 1991; Zagzebski, 1996), l’action moralement correcte dans des circonstances données est celle que ferait un agent pleinement vertueux dans ces circonstances. Ce critère soulève toutefois deux objections. Dans certaines situations, il donne des indications erronées, et dans d’autres situations, il ne donne pas d’indication du tout. Nous soutenons que ces objections sont en réalité le résultat soit d’une simple résistance imaginative, soit d’une pétition de principe. Nous proposons alors de modifier le critère en excluant le caractère de l’agent non vertueux des circonstances moralement pertinentes. Nous envisageons enfin les implications pour la question du développement moral.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.146 · 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