MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069585775 · doi:10.3138/utlj.020614-03ra

List and Pettit on group agency and group responsibility

2014· article· en· W2069585775 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vincent Chiao

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Group (periodic table)Criminal liabilityLiabilityLaw and economicsPolitical scienceCriminal responsibilitySociologyLawCriminal lawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Criminal liability for corporations may seem quixotic insofar as corporations appear neither to have the same cognitive capacities as individuals, nor to be capable of acting except through the efforts of the individuals who constitute them. One way of clarifying the basis of corporate criminal liability is to consider whether and how corporations (and other groups) are genuine agents, capable of having attitudes and taking actions in ways that go beyond the attitudes and acts of their constituent members. In this brief essay, I consider the recent, ambitious and ground-breaking work by Christian List and Philip Pettit in this regard. I outline the major themes and positions taken and critically discuss the connection they suggest between group agents and group responsibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.025
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0080.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicWildlife Conservation and Criminology AnalysesFrench-language works237,207