Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract Human activity and rationality are governed by a variety of norms. Morality, public policies, legal organizations, political institutions, and economic governance illustrate how large swathes of society are organized around norms that determine what is just, good, legitimate, desirable, permitted, or expected in our communal lives. Normativity also pervades rationality, both theoretical and practical: beliefs, inferences, assertions, intentions, emotions, and actions are standardly understood as being governed by norms of truth, reliability, consistency, fittingness, or justification, which set the standard or measure for what should or ought to be done. For Kant, even the domain of aesthetics, or, more precisely, our experience of the beautiful, is governed by a norm, viz. 'a rule that we cannot state', and in recent years some philosophers invested the field of affects and developed normative accounts of feelings, well-being, and happiness. The immense variety of expressions of normativity in nearly every aspect of our lives attests to its philosophical significance, which has translated into a rapidly growing number of publications in recent years in all areas of philosophical thinking (for a partial survey, see Baker 2018; Finlay 2019).
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.024 | 0.055 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".