MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082794432 · doi:10.5840/monist200386321

A Humean Argument for Benevolence to Strangers

2003· article· it· W2082794432 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Monist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical Ethics and Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)MonismPhilosophyEpistemologyPhilosophy of mindAnalytic philosophyTeleological argumentContemporary philosophyPhilosophy of scienceSociologyMetaphysicsTeleology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Journal Article A Humean Argument for Benevolence to Strangers Get access Catherine Wilson Catherine Wilson University of British Columbia Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar The Monist, Volume 86, Issue 3, 1 July 2003, Pages 454–468, https://doi.org/10.5840/monist200386321 Published: 16 December 2014

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.034
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe MonistSame topicPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryFrench-language works237,207