MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954077660 · doi:10.3138/utlj.2018-0115

Corrective justice, coherence, and Kantian right

2019· article· en· W2954077660 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. London Fell

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFree Will and Agency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremiseEconomic JusticeCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)IndeterminateLaw and economicsLawEpistemologyPhilosophySociologyPolitical scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ernest Weinrib has argued, influentially, that private law must only do ‘corrective justice’ and that corrective justice is coextensive with the Kantian principle of right. These important claims, although extensively critiqued, have not been adequately refuted. The first depends on the premise that private law must be ‘coherent’ – that is, based on a ‘single integrated justification’ – to be justified. The second depends on Weinrib’s understanding of the ‘equality’ that corrective justice maintains. I will identify the precise reasons for rejecting both of these arguments and consider some of the implications of doing so.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicFree Will and AgencyFrench-language works237,207