MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2018· article· pl· W2793499436 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.023

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