MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248581481 · doi:10.3138/jcs.39.2.179

Contexts in Conflict: Public and Private Components of Assessment in Ethical Judgements

2005· article· en· W4248581481 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Maureen Mancuso

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Freedom and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyPoliticsContext (archaeology)SociologyPublic opinionObserver (physics)Boundary (topology)EpistemologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsEnvironmental ethicsSocial psychologyPositive economicsPsychologyLawEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on complementary survey and focus group data on Canadian mass attitudes, this essay examines the effects of changing contexts—public versus private—on the assessment of ethically charged political behaviour. In general, acts seen as public will face harsher scrutiny and more stringent expectations than those deemed to be private matters. The divide between public and private realms is not, however, a simple, linear border, but rather one that shifts and extends along multiple conceptual dimensions, depending upon the details of the activity being assessed and the context of the observer. Locating this boundary more precisely can enhance understanding of ethical priorities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian StudiesSame topicAcademic Freedom and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207