MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128105653 · doi:10.1017/s1537592707071733

Distributive Justice and Disability: Utilitarianism Against Egalitarianism

2007· article· en· W2128105653 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Politics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEgalitarianismUtilitarianismDistributive justiceEconomic JusticeSociologyLaw and economicsDistributive propertyPositive economicsLawPolitical scienceEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distributive Justice and Disability: Utilitarianism Against Egalitarianism. By Mark S. Stein. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. 316p. $50.00. In A Theory of Justice (1971), John Rawls viewed the interests and concerns of people with disabilities as beyond the pale of justice, at best requiring that ad hoc or “special” measures be added onto policies designed for “normal” people. Happily, these days theorists of distributive justice treat disability not as an outlier but as a litmus test of theoretical adequacy. In his superb book, Mark Stein follows this path, but with the specific purpose of pitting utilitarianism against egalitarianism. It is when these competing theories deal with disability, he argues, that we notice how much they diverge, and more to the point, how and why it is that utilitarianism is superior.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.318 · 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