MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4237907694 · doi:10.22215/etd/2016-11429

Effective Expressions of Agency in a Broad Network of Relationships

2016· dissertation· en· W4237907694 on OpenAlexaff
Emily G. Jacobs

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)AutonomyRationalityEpistemologyMillerIndividualismSociologyOppressionMoral agencySocial psychologyDutyPsychologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I argue that while Amartya Sen provides good reasons for focusing on the agency aspect of individuals, his account is too constrained.Sen describes agency in terms of individuals and their capacity for rationality and fails to account for the effect of a broad network of relationships.I turn to Sarah Clark Miller's expanded account of agency to argue that the abilities of relationality and emotionality are also relevant for effective agency.I then argue that Miller's focus on the moral duty to care means that her account is also too individualistic.I ground her account instead in the thoroughly relational nature of agents to show that her account must be coupled with a relational account of autonomy to be adequately sensitive to the effects of oppression on agents.I end by suggesting that oppressed agents can challenge social conditions that are not completely conducive to full autonomy through solidarity.'philosophy' but I heard no such judgment.I think that no matter what I chose to do they would be behind me; they're just those sort of people.It was also very helpful to have v parents (well really, I'm looking at you mom) who worked hard to be financially supportive so I didn't have to worry so much about those things.To Mom: I could not be the independent, intelligent, thesis-writing person I am today without your constant love and support throughout my life.At the end of the day, when it seemed like no one else could totally understand what it is I needed, I went to you.You may not always feel appreciated but please know that you are.When it seems like I don't need you it's only because you did such a good job in the first place.To Dad: I know a lot of who I am comes from you even if sometimes I don't want to believe it.I think it's a lot of the good parts of me too.I know you were there for me in the ways you knew how to be.(And thankfully mom was around for when that wasn't enough!)To Evan: It was always great for my confidence to have someone looking up to me (even if you would never admit it!)I like to think I helped a little bit in you becoming the person you are.I am so proud of you and think so much of our individual success comes from each other.I needed a little brother and I like to think you needed me too.You three have played a crucial role in helping me become the person I am today.I love you.Thank you.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.024
Scholarly communication0.0090.015
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics→French-language works237,207→