An Analysis of Empirical Research on the Scope of Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scope of justice has been defined as the boundary within which justice is perceived to be relevant. The empirical literature on this topic is primarily aimed at predicting when a target will be excluded from the scope of justice and at examining potential consequences of exclusion, from accepting a target's suffering to active harm-doing such as mass internment and genocide. The concept of the scope of justice is interesting and heuristically useful, but there are several problems with the empirical literature that impede its progress. For example, the proposed mediator often has not been measured, or operationalizations of the scope of justice have been confounded with other constructs. Also, although the scope of justice remains one possible explanation for results obtained in various experiments, there are equally compelling alternatives that do not implicate exclusion from the scope of justice. We offer suggestions about how to study scope of justice issues in the future and identify points that need to be clarified regarding the conceptualization of the scope of justice.
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 | 0.045 | 0.231 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".