MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173624455 · doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-731-8_2

Practical Rationality and A Recovery of Aristotle’s ‘Phronesis’ For the Professions

2012· book-chapter· en· W2173624455 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

VenueSensePublishers eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPsychology of Social Influence
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhronesisRationalityEpistemologyEcological rationalityPhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Western philosophical tradition, customary practice has been to distinguish theoretical reason, which is concerned to determine what one should believe, from practical reason (or practical rationality), where practical rationality is concerned to determine how one should act. In recent decades, there has been a renewed interest in Aristotle’s conception of practical rationality, or ‘phronesis.’ My main task here is to explicate some of the important roles such a (recovered) concept can and should usefully play in the professions.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.269 · 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