Bibliographic record
Abstract
The famous American environmental ethicist Holmes Rolston III pointed out that the old ethics emphasized only one species’ welfare; the new ethics must pay attention to the welfare of life including millions of species that make up the earth’s evolution. In the past, human beings were the only species that got moral treatment; they only acted in accordance with their own interests, and dealt with other things in their own interests; new ethics increased the respect for all species. Nature has intrinsic value that is the logical starting point to broaden the people’s moral care to nature. So the theory is the core purport of unanthrocentrism of environmental ethics. Nature not only has instrumental value, but also has the intrinsic value of the objective. In this regard, Rolston and Marx’s points of natural value have too many of the same or similarities. In the past, the academic understanding of the relative views of Rolston and Marx is not comprehensive, at least not dialectics. Like all the past materialism, Marx acknowledged that the natural alienation is pre-existence, systematization, development of its own. In a word, the objectivity of natural features is admitted. Rolston tends to be more consistent with Marx’s views. In his viewpoint, nature has not only the tool value, but also has the inherent or congenital value, namely the intrinsic value. Non-human nature has intrinsic value that is also the focus of philosophical debate in recent years. To study the correspondence of Rolston and Marx’s view of natural value, the paper contributes to provide theoretical support for natural intrinsic value, to help the people know the importance of human and nature harmony and improve the people’s enthusiasm of nature conservation, advantageous to actualize ecological civilization and promote harmonical development of mankind and nature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".