Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper shows how different properties of time and their ethical implications are reflected in the framing of debates around planning and the perceived problem of delay in the delivery of infrastructure. We examine the way in which plans can take the form of ‘time maps’ that are linear projections of a series of events. This can lead to assumptions that desired futures can only be achieved if the actions that constitute events are performed correctly often coupled with a moral imperative to such performances. It also reflects an orientation towards a more closed view of time that emphasises the significance of ordering such events within a series. This contrasts with a second, more open conception that emphasises the changing, flowing experience of time. Alfred Gell describes these interconnected perspectives as the A- and B-series qualities of time both of which are thick with ethical entanglements. Thus, we use these to set out a framework that applies deontological and consequentialist ethics to the A- and B-series and the tension between delivery and deliberation that exists in infrastructure planning policy to show how different perspectives on time raise different ethical questions.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it