MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245121976 · doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-376-1_1

Ethics

2011· book-chapter· en· W4245121976 on OpenAlexaff
James Kent Donlevy, Keith Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueSensePublishers eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxiologyRelation (database)EpistemologyValue (mathematics)MetaphysicsMeta-ethicsRhetoricPhilosophyBossSociologyLawInformation ethicsPolitical scienceMathematicsComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In general and very simplistically, a classical definition of philosophy is a field comprised of Metaphysics (which studies the nature of existence), Epistemology (which studies how one knows what exists), and Axiology (studying the quality of value which includes the category of ethics). Ethics asks, “How one ought to act in relation to that which exists – humans and things?” In other words what, given the nature of the entity asking the question and that which is being engaged in the relationship, is the correct type of relationship where “correct” means contributory to life or continued existence within the nature of the entity regarding the nature of those in the relationship. This been said, Boss (1998) is correct when she suggests that ethics is like air, all around but only noticed in its absence (p. 5). Ethics is not about rhetoric, what we say, what we intend, what is written, or what has been framed into a credo, but rather ethics is about actions and attitudes, who we are to people, how we treat people, who we are when no one seems to be looking … it is about choosing to do more than the law requires and less than the law allows.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.207 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensePublishers eBooksSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207