MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2898884457 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-13232

Disability Friendly Virtue Ethics

2018· dissertation· en· W2898884457 on OpenAlexafffund
Rebecca Robb

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsFlourishingVirtueVirtue ethicsOppressionDisability studiesEpistemic virtueVirtuous circle and vicious circleSociologyEnvironmental ethicsEudaimoniaDisabled peopleNormative ethicsEpistemologyPsychologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceLawGender studiesPhilosophyLife stylePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disability friendly virtue ethics calls for an accessible world.With the help of Aristotle I argue that to be fully virtuous one must be able to flourish.I also argue that all disabled people have the potential to flourish and be fully virtuous, including those with profound intellectual impairments.I point to systems of oppression and discrimination against disabled people and argue they are wrong in part because they block flourishing.By imagining a world where disabled people, and all people, can flourish I identify seven virtues that would most encourage removal of barriers to the flourishing of people with disabilities.Disability friendly virtue ethics is grounded in Aristotlian virtue ethics and includes insights from disability theory and activism.

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)0.006
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.018
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.444 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEthics in medical practice→French-language works237,207→