MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769979446 · doi:10.1177/0008429817732724

Life in Contradiction to Life

2017· article· en· W2769979446 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jill Carroll

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical Ethics and Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDualismMetaphysicsContradictionEnvironmental ethicsNatural (archaeology)HarmEpistemologySociologyPhilosophyLawPolitical scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the central moral injunction of non-violence toward sentient beings, rooted in both religious and secular worldviews, which exhorts the practice of vegetarianism, condemns the killing of animals, and rejects all forms of predation in general, including hunting. Specifically, this article examines the moral injunction of non-violence through the prism of Nietzsche’s analysis of metaphysical dualism and the decadent, nihilistic, world-denying postures that he claims accompany such dualism. A Nietzschean analysis exposes the condemnations of hunting (and of predation in general) rooted in the moral injunction of non-violence as distinct versions of a nature-denying, world-hating philosophy – despite the fact that those who defend such an approach usually claim it to be a world-affirming (and animal loving) stance. The article concludes with a warning against the particular human arrogance that seeks to re-order natural processes in accordance with human moral conventions and ideals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.042
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.255
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryFrench-language works237,207