MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Moral Intention

2012· book· en· W4206305569 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Wilks

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2012
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Philosophy and Theology
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyAction (physics)EpistemologyMoral authorityMoral psychologyMoral disengagementPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article notes that two medieval philosophers achieve centrality in the history of moral intention: Peter Abelard and William of Ockham, who alike adopt the strong position of claiming that only moral intention, not ensuing action, is a suitable basis for moral judgment. This shared thesis is pivotal in their respective moral theories and produces between them what deserves to be considered a fairly distinctive strand of moral theory within the larger setting of medieval thought. The article considers the early evidence for strands of moral theory in the writings of St Augustine and St Anselm, and then observes it as it achieves full expression in the writings of Abelard and Ockham.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.005

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.134 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicMedieval Philosophy and TheologyFrench-language works237,207