MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Jaka etyka społeczna? Rozważania na kanwie poglądów etyczno-politycznych Isaiaha Berlina i Leszka Kołakowskiego

2018· article· pl· W2793499436 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Fligel

Bibliographic record

VenueRocznik Filozoficzno-Społeczny Civitas Hominibus · 2018
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsNortel (Canada)
FundersAsylum, Migration and Integration Fund
KeywordsPhilosophyPoliticsTheologyReligious studiesPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Celem artykułu jest refleksja nad kwestią etyki społecznej w liberalnej demokracji. Ważnym i pomocniczym elementem artykułu jest analiza porównawcza myśli Isaiaha Berlina i Leszka Kołakowskiego. Analizę tę przeprowadzono jedynie dla wybranych esejów wskazanych filozofów. Główną metodą badań jest własna interpretacja i próba syntezy. Jej wynikiem jest lista wartości społecznych, wraz z definicjami, które uważane są za istotne dla ustroju demokracji liberalnej. Są to: pluralizm, tolerancja, wolność, otwartość, racjonalna komunikacja, pokora i odpowiedzialność.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRocznik Filozoficzno-Społeczny Civitas HominibusSame topicEducation and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207