MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948578061 · doi:10.32995/praxispsy.vi20.86

Responsibility and responsiveness Responsabilidad y sensibilización

2017· article· en· W2948578061 on OpenAlexaff
Trudy Govier, Wilhelm Werwoerd

Bibliographic record

VenuePraxis Psy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicWar, Ethics, and Justification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPoliticsMeaning (existential)Moral responsibilitySocial psychologySociologyPolitical sciencePsychologyLawPhilosophyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In contexts where the reconciliation of previously contending parties is a goal, the terms ‘victims’ and ‘perpetrators’ can be polarizing and counter-productive. There is a need for a more nuanced framework that goes beyond primary levels of involvement. For ‘victims,’ this point is well recognized. Secondarily involved are family members and other close affiliates of the harmed person, while the tertiary level is that of community members harmed individually or collectively. For ‘perpetrators,’ the extension of involvement from primary to secondary and tertiary levels is less often discussed. An analogous framework of primary, secondary and tertiary participation or “perpetrators” is developed, based on degrees of causal and moral responsibility for actions committed in a violent political conflict. The additional roles of bystanders and beneficiaries are also clarified. The framework furthermore extends the meaning of responsibility beyond causal responsibility to include a counterpart account of forwardlooking ability to respond or ‘response-ability.’ The article concludes with responses to a series of possible objections to this more complex framework regarding responsibility.
 Resumen: En contextos en los que la reconciliación es una meta entre partes que estaban previamente en contienda, los términos ‘víctimas’ y ‘victimarios’ pueden ser polarizantes y contra-intuitivos. Por esta razón, existe la necesidad de un marco más adecuado que vaya más allá de los niveles primarios de vínculo entre partes en conflicto. Para las ‘víctimas’ este es un hecho conocido. Cabe recordar que en el vínculo de segundo orden se encuentran miembros de la familia u otros cercanos a la persona dañada, mientras que un tercer nivel está compuesto por los miembros de la comunidad dañados individual o colectivamente por el conflicto. En torno a la idea de ‘victimarios’, a extensión del vínculo desde un nivel primario a uno secundario y luego terciario se discute menos en la literatura. Aquí se desarrolla un marco análogo para nivel de participación primaria, secundaria y terciaria de ‘victimarios’, basado en grados de responsabilidad causal y moral respecto de acciones cometidas en un conflicto político violento. Los roles adicionales de observadores y beneficiarios también son clarificados en este marco. Este trabajo además extiende el significado de responsabilidad más allá de lo causal para incluir la perspectiva de la contraparte en tanto ‘habilidad de respuesta’. Este artículo concluye con una respuesta a una serie de objeciones posibles a este marco más complejo en relación con la responsabilidad. 

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 venuePraxis PsySame topicWar, Ethics, and JustificationFrench-language works237,207