Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract People often disagree about what counts as “just” in a particular case. Such disagreement is natural and understandable once we realize that people commonly bring to the concept of justice different understandings of what makes something just or unjust, interpret general principles differently in specific circumstances, and/or fail to see eye to eye on appropriate ways of resolving justice disputes. But in all cases, disagreement about what is just logically requires that the parties share an understanding of what it is that they are disagreeing about. Similarly, any analysis of the role justice might play in a particular domain – here, negotiation – requires a shared understanding of what it is that is playing the role in question. The purpose of this article is to articulate and justify a shared understanding of the concept of justice that facilitates both the understanding and resolution of justice disputes.
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 | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| 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; 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".