Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to see to what extent philosophers (from Plato to Rousseau) have described the phenomenon of corruption in a way that is relevant for corrupt practices in globalized markets. Design/methodology/approach The paper analyzes five levels of corruption from a philosophical viewpoint: corruption of principles (“ontic/spiritual/axiological corruption”), corruption of moral behavior (“moral corruption”), corruption of people (“social corruption”), corruption of organizations (“institutional corruption”), and corruption of states (“national/societal/cultural corruption”). Findings The paper finds that actual forms of corruption are basically grounded in prior phenomena of corruption, whether it is the corruption of principles, the corruption of moral behavior, the corruption of people, the corruption of organizations, or the corruption of states. In each case, philosophers have described the deep and broad effects of corruption. Their criticism is quite close to the way the social impact of corruption is presently circumscribed. Originality/value The paper addresses the issue of corruption in a philosophical way, and then tends to enhance the social relevance of philosophical discourse when dealing with corrupt practices.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".