Cosmopolitan Education in Agonistic Morality: Epistemological Restraint, Discourse Ethics, and Agonistic Pluralism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cosmopolitan education has been much theorized, discussed, and proposed, but what, exactly, might it look like and what specific processes might it involve? Cosmopolitanism’s recognition of shared humanity and the subsequent entailment of democratic inclusion make explicit the moral and political nature of cosmopolitan education and philosophy. As an ethico-political process, existing political and ethical processes can be brought to bear on its educational manifestations. The political concepts of epistemological restraint, discourse ethics, and agonistic pluralism are offered as models for cosmopolitan education in agonistic morality: epistemological restraint is used to address the need for prioritization of moral inquiry over moral belief; discourse ethics addresses the necessity of inclusive and democratic dialogue; agonistic pluralism offsets the implications of the inevitability of pluralism in educational inquiry. All three combine to form a process of cosmopolitan education in agonistic morality.
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 | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.105 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".