An Ethical Approach to the 21st Century Humanity in the Face of Globalization: Towards Redefining the Meaning of Humanity in the Modern Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Historically, every century has a remarkable event for which it is known. These events, apart from giving a peculiar identity to a century, influences the religious, political, and socio-economic lives of the people. Apparently, the underlying element in the plurality of the world-views of the people of a century is the peculiar events of their time. In this light, the 21st century is identical with globalization. METHODOLOGY: The study used a qualitative design. The methods used were historical, expository, and critical. The historical method was used to trace some centuries before the 21st century to examine their various understandings and approaches to the concept of humanity. The expository method was used to dissect the various anchors of humanity to see the relevance of a redefinition of humanity in the modern times. Finally, the critical method was used to access the 21st century humans to know the expediency for a paradigm shift on the concept of humanity in the modern times. RESULT: This paper argues that aside the positive effects of globalization, there is an urgent need to redefine the meaning of humanity that is already defaced by its inherent activities. CONCLUSION: This research recommends that an ethical redress in the understanding of humanity in the face of today’s globalization is expedient to promote reverence for human lives. This will help to avoid the collapse of this century into a game of exploitation of each other, the dead end of narcissism and invariably the dark age of a modern time.
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 | 0.036 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".