Bibliographic record
Abstract
The New Bureaucracies of Virtue: IntroductionOnce a soft humanitarian twist to professional, commercial, or academic ventures, relegated to the margins of knowledge, practical ethics-from business ethics to military ethics-is an increasingly mainstream, high-profile, well-funded, and bureaucratically complex discipline.What it has kept from its early years is its catchy wording and a self-assured sense that it is engaged in making things better.One of the interesting features of modern ethics is that it must continually be demonstrated-it must be bureaucratically evidenced, revealed, documented, enacted, performed.This special issue explores the documentation of social science research ethics as one site of the evidentiary practices surrounding practical ethics.As Foucauldian theory has long pointed out, ethics is usually presented as a selfevident good-the only question is how to do it and demonstrate it.It is said that the impulse to formalize research ethics originally stemmed in Europe from the Nuremberg Code, which was drafted in reaction to the postwar accounts of abuses of research subjects in clinical experimentation.Our specific interest is in how this self-evident good comes to be bureaucratized-in "the institutionalization of overenthusiastic best practice" (Strathern 2006:533).At its inception, the Institutional Research Boards (IRBs) bureaucracy, which institutionalizes research ethics in the United States, 1 was lauded for evidencing best practice by documenting, by routinizing it.Hence our term for our subject, "bureaucracies of virtue."The clinical research ethics model is based on universalistic principles of informed consent, confidentiality, and protection from harm (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research 1979; World Medical Association 1964).Today, in many countries, this clinical research ethics model has expanded to cover many fields of knowledge, including research in many disciplines of the humanities and social sciences.In the bureaucracies of virtue, all living nonresearcher persons who contribute to a researcher's project are indexed as "research subjects" and are conceived of as needing protection, protection of one uniform kind (except for those persons who are in need of even more protection, such as the "economically and medically disadvantaged," "those who cannot give or refuse consent for themselves," and those
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".