Smith, Holly M. <i>Making Morality Work</i>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. 432. $67.00 (cloth).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suppose we adopt this reading.What then of motivation?The motivations arising from love, valuing, and satisfaction are not, or not directly, matters of sympathy.So, fortunately, if the motivation of sympathy is a shaky one, there are additional motivational resources to draw on, beyond those of sympathy.But this just shows that the idea that utilitarian motivation is purely a matter of sympathy is anyway an artifact of a misleading and impoverished moral psychology.Some utilitarians (e.g., J. J. C. Smart, "An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics," in Utilitarianism: For and Against, ed.J. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], 3-74, 7, 31) have perhaps suggested that idea, but most (e.g., John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998], chap.2) have had more sophisticated accounts all along.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.050 |
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".