MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MULGAN'S FUTURE PEOPLE

2007· article· en· W2125824432 on OpenAlexaff
Rahul Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Philosophical Quarterly · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical Ethics and Theory
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)MoralityEconomic JusticeSubject (documents)Environmental ethicsSociologyEpistemologyQuality (philosophy)Law and economicsPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Questions regarding the foundations and substantive content of our obligations to future generations are amongst the most practically important and theoretically challenging in moral theory. Tim Mulgan's new book‐length study of the subject (the first of its kind), Future People, is a contribution of the first importance to philosophical debate on the key issues in this area. Sophisticated, ambitious in scope and engagingly written, it offers a concise introduction to many of the central philosophical questions concerning both the morality of reproductive decisions and intergenerational justice, as well as advancing a powerful and original approach to answering them. A plausible account of our obligations to future generations should aspire, according to Mulgan, to make sense of two crucial intuitions. First, it is certainly wrong for one generation knowingly and unnecessarily to deplete resources which future generations will need if they are to maintain the same quality of life as was enjoyed by previous generations. Secondly, individuals ought to be free to make their own lifestyle decisions, and in particular, their own reproductive decisions, providing their decisions do not unreasonably burden others in the society, or those who will live in the future.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.830
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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.221 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Philosophical QuarterlySame topicPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryFrench-language works237,207