Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay describes the ethics of care, a philosophical theory originally born out of psychological studies on development. For much of psychological history, women were seen to be ‘less developed’ on standardized tests of morality. In response, Carol Gilligan produced a study that examined how women’s conceptions of moral responsibility differ from men, especially in terms of care, connection, and interdependence. This relationality has been developed into a complex ethical theory which this paper opposes against consequentialism and Kantian ethics; two ethical theories that instead favour impersonality. Further, it is argued that not only is unequal interdependence central to human experience; it is also a natural human drive to care for ourselves and the people closest to us. Ethical theories that oppose this fail to serve their purpose in providing a framework that is possible for humans to follow and must make concessions or sub- justifications to avoid complete alienation in their followers. With two case examples, this essay establishes the ethics of care within the psychological development framework and argues for its superiority as compared to impersonal ethical theories.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".