Bibliographic record
Abstract
No work in the ancient philosophy corpus has generated more scholarly discussion in recent years than Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics ( N.E .), and no issue that it raises has been more controversial than Aristotle’s position(s) throughout the work concerning the ultimate human good, which he consistently identifies with eudaimonia (conventionally translated as “happiness”). Debate has chiefly centered on the question whether Aristotle represents eudaimonia as comprising a plurality of intrinsically choiceworthy goods (“inclusive” end) – meaning either a set of virtuous activities or this plus various intrinsic goods such as pleasure and friends – or whether, instead, he envisions it to be a unitary goal (“dominant” end) consisting strictly in just one supremely excellent thing, more specifically, a single kind of virtuous activity. It is widely agreed that his preliminary discussion of eudaimonia in Book i of N.E . is couched in terms that are too general or too ambiguous to settle the question decisively, though they tend, in my view, to favor the “inclusive” alternative. However, in Book x Aristotle states unequivocally that the happiest life consists in the exercise of intellectual virtue or contemplation ( theoria ), while the political life of moral virtue (which he has been exclusively treating throughout Books ii–v and vii–ix ) is happiest only “secondarily” ( N.E . x .7–8, 1178a6–10). A page or two later he writes (1178b28–32): Happiness extends, then, just so far as contemplation does, and those to whom contemplation more fully belongs are more truly happy, not incidentally but in virtue of the contemplation; for this in itself is precious. Happiness therefore must be some kind of contemplation ( theoria tis ). Taken just by themselves, these passages, especially the last one quoted, undoubtedly favor the “dominant end” interpretation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".