Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rafael Capurro calls for an intercultural information ethics that radically challenges its Eurocentric, Greek philosophical roots and grapples with and validates cultural diversity. One of the voices that must be included in this project is that of feminism, both within and outside of Western culture. While there are a variety of feminist issues and approaches to feminism, embracing the naturalistic approach, suggested by Alison Jaggar, one can find sufficient commonalities, both in terms of a critique of traditional male-dominated Western ethics and in terms of a positive content and agenda, to establish a feminist framework. One strong voice that help create this framework is that of Carol Gilligan who studied the moral development of women. This paper argues that the “different voice” thesis of Gilligan (i.e., that men and women prototypically – not stereotypically – bring different voices to moral argumentation and ethical deliberation) can serve as an ethical principle, that permits all persons – male or female – to interrogate and guide their ethical choices, and that an ‘ethic of care’ can challenge an ‘ethic of rights,’ and on occasion can trump it as a major guiding ethical principle.
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 | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".