"Moral Education: Beyond the Teaching of Right and Wrong" (Colin Wringe)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Well researched contributions to moral education are always welcome, comprehensive treatments will arouse much interest, and truly interesting meta-analyses of the field are certainly to be prized. The challenge in reading Wringe's exceptionally lucid contribution, therefore, is to determine what has been accomplished in this comprehensive survey of the field of moral education. The question is not whether his contribution is worthy within the field-that much is certain-but rather whether its comprehensiveness transcends a mere surveying and is in fact the kind of meta-analysis that will offer a trend-setting restatement of aims in the field. Now it would be irresponsible for this reviewer to make any extravagant claims about Wringe "revolutionizing" the field, but it is certainly worth exploring the question of why this book's is at least "interesting" in its restatement of moral education. The book's significance turns on this question: does Wringe offer only a timely update of past and current questions, or in doing so has he also restructured the field's awareness of itself?
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".