MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205096217 · doi:10.1111/ejop.12756

<scp>Self‐deception</scp>and moral interests

2022· article· en· W4205096217 on OpenAlex
David A. Borman

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 Journal of Philosophy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalse accusationDeceptionPrima facieArgument (complex analysis)Self-deceptionNorm (philosophy)EpistemologyReductio ad absurdumPsychologySocial psychologyLaw and economicsPhilosophySociologyMetaphysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Adult persons normally are taken as prima facie authorities regarding their own avowed interests, so that an accusation of self‐deception with respect to such interests troubles our default presumptions. Furthermore, the difficulty, in practice, of knowing when such accusations are warranted presents a peculiar obstacle to moral justification, inasmuch as knowing how the interests of various persons really are likely to be affected by some act or norm is an accepted preliminary to moral justification across a wide range of theoretical approaches and is, in some cases—such as in contractualist accounts—decisive. I argue that a careful examination of the pragmatics of coherent allegations of self‐deception shows them to rely on a form of ‘proleptic’ argument, and that the truth‐ or validity‐conditions for such utterances lie in the transformative appropriation of the one so accused.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.236 · 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