Preference, pluralism, and proportionality
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
Inspired by Michael Trebilcock's commitment to pluralism, this essay analyses the balancing and accommodating of competing values, often a central task in the making of legal judgments.Part I shows why it is so difficult to resist being utilitarian in one's approach to this problem.Using the methods of social choice theory, the author shows that some seemingly reasonable conditions ineluctably lead to the utilitarian result where the different values are suitably weighted and summed.However, Part II demonstrates that the utilitarian approach is less compelling than it appears.An alternative method for the aggregation of values, namely, the product rule proposed by John Nash, is also available.The product rule recommends different results than the utilitarian summation rule, and does so in a way that does less violence to the genuine pluralism of very different values.Part III relates these different results to the law's commitment to proportionality and to sequenced and bilateral processes of adjudication.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it