The Primacy of Human Dignity as a Central Concern for Education in the Future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article explores the primacy of human dignity as a central concern for the future of education, particularly within the context of health ethics and end-of-life care. It critiques the prevalent ambiguities and manipulations of the term "human dignity" by examining the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel's Report on End-of-Life Decision Making, which dismisses the concept of dignity as insufficient for normative ethical questions. The article argues that such dismissals are strategically used to promote the moral right to assisted suicide by overemphasizing individual autonomy. It draws parallels to ideological manipulations of language as described by George Orwell and underscores the importance of maintaining clear and precise definitions to avoid fallacies. The discussion highlights three universal meanings of human dignity—ontological dignity, dignity-decency, and dignity-liberty—and their implications for ethical decision-making in end-of-life care. The conclusion emphasizes the necessity of preserving the authentic understanding of human dignity in educational discourse to ensure ethical integrity in future societal practices.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".