MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186910257 · doi:10.1163/21967415-bja10020

Moral Psychology, Neuroscience, and Non-Combatant Immunity

2020· article· en· W3186910257 on OpenAlex
Richard Price

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Review of International Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicWar, Ethics, and Justification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeJudgementCombatantRelevance (law)Moral psychologyNorm (philosophy)PsychologyEpistemologyMoral disengagementSocial psychologyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Some have argued for the relevance for normative ethics of empirical research in international relations on the origins and role of moral norms. Building on such arguments, the paper considers the relevance of contemporary research in moral psychology and neuroscience for the ethics of war. Research in those fields has implications for our understanding of the sources and nature of moral beliefs and judgement, and thus may shed light on efforts to morally bound violence. In this chapter I consider how such research helps us understand the norm of non-combatant immunity, and explore the implications for understanding the effectiveness of such norms and for normative practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.242
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.133 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it