MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094056944 · doi:10.1017/s0012217300003036

Hare's Utilitarianism and the Free-Rider Problem

2004· article· fr· W2094056944 on OpenAlexaff
R. Jo Kornegay

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogue · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical Ethics and Theory
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyUtilitarianismEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Cet essai se concentre sur les tentatives de Hare de résoudre le problème du profiteur (free-rider) dans les termes de la théorie où il distingue les niveaux intuitif et critique de la pensée morale. Hare fait valoir que la pensée critique correcte en utilitarisme des actes endosse les règles qui serviront à la pensée intuitive, règles enjoignant à un individu de s'acquitter de ses responabilités sociales, par exemple voter ou recycler ses ordures. Je fais valoir que Hare propose ou suggère implicitement divers entères de sélection des règies, critères que j'entreprends de désambiguïser. Je soutiens en outre qu'aucun de ces critères n'arrive à résoudre complètement le problème du profiteur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialogueSame topicPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryFrench-language works237,207