MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Justice and Murder

2022· book-chapter· en· W4297634276 on OpenAlexaff
John Berkman

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMistakeMoralityVirtueEconomic JusticeMoral philosophySociologyPhilosophyEpistemologyEnvironmental ethicsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Drawing in part on new biographical discoveries about Anscombe, this chapter argues that Anscombe’s work in moral philosophy was driven by her concern to recover the absolute moral prohibition on murder, and the virtue of justice as the appropriate basis for it. Oxford moral philosophy made the mistake of giving priority to abstract moral theorising over the most fundamental moral convictions. Anscombe, following the wisdom of great philosophical and religious traditions, recognised that the prohibition against killing innocent people as a requirement of natural justice is a prerequisite for legitimate theorising about morality. She thus attacked what she took to be the naïve, frivolous, and/or degenerate moral theorising of the Oxford moral philosophers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.134 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal ChangesFrench-language works237,207