Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between ethics and economics in the modern age is typically viewed as external.This view is usually articulated in the notion that for economic relations to be ethical, an ethic must beimposed. Otherwise, economic relations are amoral. I try to show how the relationship is actually bestexplained by adopting an explanatory framework of inter-dependent arising, according to which theemergence and development of both ethical and economic relations is a matter of mutual determination.Ethical values emerge in the course of developing economic relations and, in turn, direct or at leastimplicate economic relations. The consequences of such a view, however, are that exchange values informmoral concepts (e.g., of what is morally owed to members of a community) and moral concepts help frameeconomic ones. I offer an argument that starts with a description of an historical relationship between twodisparate cultures (English and Iroquoian). The interactions between these cultures were determinedinitially by trade and then military interests. These interests eventually underwent pressure to evolve intolegal and even religiously informed arrangements that necessarily involved certain moral values. Using apresupposition analysis, I show how this evolution was no accident and did not depend on some agent(s)imposing the moral values onto the relationship. Rather, those values arose as a matter of course. Inconclusion, the paper advances the idea that, since the relationship between ethics and economics isinternal, the ethics of economic relations needs to be formulated more in terms of understanding whateconomic relations are fundamentally designed to achieve.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".