Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I examine the role that conscience plays in an account of as a distinctive area of doctrine, principles and rules. Historically, appeals to conscience in equitable reasoning were common place. Contemporary equity scholars, like Irit Samet, maintain that conscience remains at normative and conceptual core of Equitable reasoning. In her recent book, Equity Goes to Market, Samet argues that Equity’s role is to ensure that law tracks the demands of conscience: law and equity combined require us to do ‘‘the right thing.’’ On Samet's account, conscience is the inner voice that an ordinary person ought to have if she is a well-functioning moral agent. This paper offers a critique of the view that appeals to morality writ-large - what I call conscience without filters - and defends a different view of the nature and role of conscience in Equity. Equity's conscience is conscience with a filter: the conscience of an officeholder with filters that admit only the kinds of reasons, and the sequencing of reasons, appropriate to that office. The office of the judge as an agent of generates filters that account for Equity's special concern with the integrity of a system of private rights and the limited attention pays to the broader pool of moral values that unfiltered conscience might properly respond to.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".