MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bridge Essay: The Ethical Turn

2019· other· en· W2994985238 on OpenAlexaff
Luke Clossey

Bibliographic record

VenueA Companion to World Literature · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIronyJudgementEnlightenmentBridge (graph theory)LiteratureBuddhismHistoryHebrew BiblePhilosophyAestheticsArtEpistemologyBiblical studiesArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since the eighteenth‐century European Enlightenment, scholars have repeatedly identified an “Axial Age” around 500 bce in which common ethical values had developed across Eurasia. After a survey of the scholarly debates about the Axial Age, this chapter presents an example story that appears both in the TaNaKH (Hebrew scriptures) and the Buddhist jataka ( jātaka ) tales, the “Judgement of Mahosadha/Solomon.” Three literary features distinguish Axial Age texts: imagery serving a pedagogical purpose, verbal irony, and a protagonist most essentially identified with ethical concerns.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Companion to World LiteratureSame topicHistorical, Religious, and Philosophical StudiesFrench-language works237,207