Trouble du spectre de l’autisme : Une agentivite morale objective, rigoriste et emotionnelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) refers to a set of neurodevelopmental disorders characterized by deficits in social communication and social interactions, as well as restricted and repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests and activities (1). Social interaction deficits notably include difficulties in empathic processes, often considered as affecting moral abilities in people suffering from ASD. Several studies in psychology and neuroscience have attempted to detect disturbed empathic processes that cause alterations in their understanding of morality (2-4). Social problems in autistic people are manifested by difficulties in their affective lives concerning their own emotional states (5-9). In this paper, I suggest that moral particularities of people with autism are a consequence of their particularities in emotional access, namely the way they relate to their own emotions, and not a consequence of empathic deficits. I will show that these particularities do not prevent them from belonging to the moral community. People with autism can indeed be rigorous moral agents, that is to say, they display a tendency to moral intransigence and inflexibility. These characteristics will be explained. In light of dual process theories, I will show how socio-emotional and moral particularities are underpinned by an overuse of type 2 processes, namely an overuse of deliberate and rule-based cognitive reasoning, instead of type 1 automatic processes. The main purpose of this study is to highlight the particularities that allow people with autism to be moral agents who, although inflexible, are nonetheless emotionally committed in moral situations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".