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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current survey studies of Victorian ethics have clearly and helpfully charted the different strands of ethical thought (e.g. utilitarianism, intuitionism). This article approaches ethics as a linguistic practise. It explores the major shifts in the use of the term ‘ethics’ by bringing together Victorian literary writings and those of philosophers and other public figures. Throughout this period, as ethical thinking had to meet the challenge of social changes, the use of the term became increasingly broadened and diversified. What could be taken as common, though tenuously shared, terms of understanding in the early Victorian period became more entangled and ambiguous in the mid‐Victorian period. In the mid‐ and late‐Victorian period, through periodical publishing, ethical debates also enabled writers to find themselves not only contesting with but also arguing past one another due to a gradual loss of common context. Yet, it was by means of rhetorical manipulations, especially irony, that the Victorian writers were able effectively to balance the contingency of articulating an ethical position with their desire to make a normative statement.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it