Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis introduces the idea of progressive autonomy, namely future-oriented self-governance, based on the pursuit of desired goals that one has established for oneself. As the thesis shows, focus on this sort of activity, as well as its value and importance, has been largely left out of the existing literature on autonomy. In contrast, this activity is central to progressive autonomy, which, as this thesis puts forth, enables the individual to actively determine the course of his life. Throughout the process, the individual is author of his own narrative, which, as the ongoing fulfillment of desired goals, he experiences as both meaningful and worthwhile. The thesis does not frame the narrative of the progressively autonomous individual as merely a story or an account of events. Rather, it does so as a sequence events the progressively autonomous individual is directly responsible for bringing about, as well as concretely situated in. He is, in other words, part and parcel of his narrative, as opposed to, say, a novelist who physically stands apart from the events he imagines and writes. Finally, the thesis demonstrates that, though the progressively autonomous individual is motivated by his own desires, he is more than just a pleasure seeker; he is strategically morally responsible. Such responsibility involves and is characterized by rejecting certain motives that undermine the actual achievement of desired goals, while affirming other motives that facilitate this achievement. This, as the thesis shows, renders the progressively autonomous individual more responsible than one who partakes in this rejection or affirmation, without regard to how either will impact one’s future.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".