MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026810767 · doi:10.3138/utq.82.4.889

The Hard Case: <i>Billy Budd</i> and the Judgment Intuitive

2013· article· en· W2026810767 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gregg Crane

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtueEpistemologyEconomic JusticePsychologyLawComputer sciencePhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the importance of a certain form of intuitive reasoning to hard cases, ambiguous situations, and problems that seem to resist the straightforward application of a clear rule. Certain aspects of the processes of judgment come into sharpest relief in those cases where justice seems to require that we bend, modify, or repress the applicable rules. Judges have often been judged not only by virtue of their adherence to the procedures and norms of law but also in regard to their ability to qualify or moderate or even subvert such rules. Melville's posthumous novel, Billy Budd, I argue, offers a revealing and even iconic instance of the necessity of intuitive reasoning to these more arduous and uncertain forms of judgment.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlySame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207