“Paved with Good Intentions:” Best Practices in the Ethics of Track Two Interventions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article unpacks the development of key ideas and debates which surround the ethical issues of Track Two. It defines what is meant by ‘Track Two’ and discusses how ethics might best be applied in practice to these dialogues. The ethical dimensions of four key issues are explored: accountability; the basis on which third parties feel they are entitled to intervene; the problem of dealing with actors who have committed atrocities; and ethical questions surrounding secrecy or confidentiality which is often required. The article suggests several ways forward in terms of creating a mechanism to enable practitioners to assist each other with the challenges they face. The article takes the view that a ‘hard and fast’ set of ethics may not be appropriate for the field, as each intervention is quite different, but rather that a set of ‘reflective questions’ should be developed to help practitioners confront ethical issues.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it