On Liberty for the Old
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Elderly adults often pose, or are perceived to pose, a risk to themselves or others. Others often also have the will, and sometimes the ability, to intervene in their lives: to take them from their homes, force medical treatment on them, and prevent them from spending their money as they see fit. Thus the question “To what extent, and for what purposes, can others interfere with the liberty of the individual?” takes on particular relevance for elderly adults. This is the question John Stuart Mill addressed in his essay On Liberty , and our aim is to adapt his theory of liberty to guide those who must make decisions about the old. We argue that individuals can be interfered with in their own interest and in the interest of others. It is apt to interfere in their own interest if and only if they are putting themselves at significant risk, are encumbered, i.e. are incompetent or subject to some other judgement-distorting condition, and interference will be: (a) effective, (b) not generative of evils greater than those it prevents, (c) the mildest possible to curb the evil, (d) not discriminatory, and (e), unless the interference has utility approaching absolute necessity, thought justified. It is apt to interfere in the interest of others if and only if they are putting others at significant risk and the same five conditions are satisfied. As we hope our adaptation of Mill's theory of liberty will have practical effect, we illustrate it with examples, relate it to the law in British Columbia, and state it in the form of a decision-tree.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".