Reclaiming Moral Agency: The Moral Philosophy of Albert the Great. By STANLEY B. CUNNINGHAM.
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
The philosophy and theology of St Albert the Great (1200–80) is not so well known or appreciated by the scholarly world as it should be; Stanley Cunningham’s excellent book on Albert’s moral philosophy could not, therefore, be more welcome. Of Albert’s four moral treatises (the fragmentary De natura boni, 1236–40; De bono, 1240–43/4; the complete commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Super Ethica, 1250–2; and the shorter commentary on the same work, Ethica, c.1262), Cunningham takes the De bono as the foundation text for his explanation and analysis, although he supplements it frequently with passages from the Super Ethica, especially when discussing the nature of moral science, happiness, and friendship. Following the order of topics in the De bono, Cunningham takes us through Albert’s moral philosophy: a metaphysical analysis of the good, the intrinsic and extrinsic causes of virtue, the nature of virtue, the organization of the virtues, the passions, and natural law (or right). On each topic, Cunningham masterfully weaves together three themes: the historical setting of Albert’s work, discussing twelfth- and thirteenth-century figures such as Peter Lombard, Abelard, Philip the Chancellor, and William of Auxerre, in addition to the earlier classical and medieval figures, such as Cicero, Macrobius, Augustine, and Boethius; a judicious discussion of contemporary scholarship on Albert; and an explanation, with some critical analysis, of Albert’s moral doctrine. The book is clear and well written, and the translations are felicitous.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 it