Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Moderation has long been identified as a hallmark of virtue. Pythagoras preached virtue from proper proportion among one's feelings, intuitions, and reasons. Plato depicted virtue as arising from reason's skill at bridling the extremes of appetite and spirit. Confucius, the Buddha, and Aristotle all promoted their own versions of a golden mean or middle‐way between extremes. Given such praise for moderation, why are people so readily drawn to extremes of thought and action? Extremes seem especially enigmatic when one considers that they are so often self‐destructive. For example, in the first century CE a group of religious fanatics who were uncompromising in their opposition to Roman rule carried daggers under their cloaks and killed anyone who did not fully support their views. Their extremism brought reprisals that crushed their “Zealot” sect, but the example of their rabid idealism persists as the origin of the word, “zeal.” Zealous extremism has accordingly come to refer to ideological conviction that belligerently insists on consensus, with apparent disregard for practical consequences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".