MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388124794 · doi:10.24124/c677/2010144

Justice as Economics in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

2010· article· en· W4388124794 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Political Science Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSeventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
Canadian institutionsCampion CollegeUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Economic JusticePolityPoliticsLaw and economicsPositive economicsPhilosophyEpistemologyEconomicsSociologyLawPolitical scienceSocial scienceNeoclassical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the role of money in Aristotle’s understanding of justice. In the Politics, Aristotle famously critiques money; a common unit of measurement representing goods for exchange, it is the source of the unlimited pursuit of wealth that is unnatural and an obstacle to the good life. I argue, however, that Aristotle’s discussion in the Politics is not exhaustive of his views on money. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s discussion of distribution, rectification and reciprocity shows that money is crucial to justice. Money initially binds citizens into a single polity, allowing an equality to emerge where none is apparent.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.233 · 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