Éthique appliquée, institutions adversatives et moralité des rôles professionnels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arthur Applbaum a nommé éthique adversative la branche de l’éthique professionnelle qui cherche à justifier la moralité des rôles et des pratiques qui permettent aux acteurs d’avoir certains comportements pourtant interdits par la moralité ordinaire. Applbaum considère qu’aucun des différents arguments mis de l’avant par les défenseurs de l’éthique adversative ne justifie de tels écarts de la moralité ; les institutions adversatives et les rôles qu’elles génèrent ne peuvent créer de permissions morales exceptionnelles. Cela découle d’une position métaéthique particulière qu’il nomme positivisme institutionnel (practice positivism), et que l’on peut définir ainsi : la moralité ordinaire a une priorité délibérative sur les règles et les conventions des pratiques et des institutions sociales pour la simple raison que ces dernières sont dépourvues de toute force morale. Cet article cherche à défendre l’éthique adversative contre les critiques d’Applbaum.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".