Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we navigate our way through the world we are faced with difficult decisions, choices, and situations, which force us into action. Sometimes choosing one course of action over another is an easy process; at other times we must stop and evaluate our options. Either way, we hope that we make our decisions because of good reasons — reasons which appear not only good to ourselves, but to others around us as well. We often feel a peculiar tension between an inclination to hold reasons as extremely personal, and a desire for them to hold moral, normative weight in the public arena. In her paper “The Activity of Reason” and her book Self-Constitution, contemporary philosopher Christine Korsgaard offers an illuminating perspective on the public nature of reasons, coming to the alarming conclusion that my reasons are your reasons. Although the belief that all reasons are public may seem at first worrisome, for we all have projects and relationships which seem to us very private, I will demonstrate how Plato’s constitutional model of the soul provides a system of making sense of these private relations and meet skeptical challenges proposed by Korsgaard’s contemporaries. Understood in this manner, I will elucidate the relationship between reason and desire and reinforce the necessary role public reason plays in both personal integrity and the possibility of shared, normative, moral deliberation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".