Bibliographic record
Abstract
The separate treatises composing the . The Nicomachean Ethics ( N.E .) presents itself as composed out of a relatively small number of “treatises” on topics in moral philosophy; the question of the unity of the N.E . therefore involves both the question of (i) how coherent each of these treatises is, and also (ii) how well they are knit together to form a coherent whole. Here I shall focus largely on the latter question, although this will require at times some attention to the former. By “presents itself” I mean two things. First, I mean simply how the N.E . appears to a careful reader who has some background knowledge of how Aristotelian texts are constituted and how Aristotle worked as a philosopher. Aristotelian texts are compiled out of “books,” which correspond to the length of a scroll. This is a purely accidental matter, but in general this length is exploited by Aristotle as a unit of treatment of a subject. Longer works would be made by joining together discussions parsed according to books. Aristotle’s own philosophical tendencies fit well with this manner of composition, because his works are generally sparse in system and architectonics: in general he aims to discuss each subject initially on its own terms – almost as if in isolation – as if he is trusting that, if this is done well, then any composition of such discussions will harmonize, on the grounds that, as he says, truth harmonizes with truth (see i .7, 1098b11–12).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".