MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401709126 · doi:10.54337/ojs.bess.v6i1.8719

Why do virtuous individuals accept and promote unethical institutions?

2024· article· en· W4401709126 on OpenAlexaff
Shann Turnbull

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Behavioural Economics and Social Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysfunctional familyIncentiveVirtuous circle and vicious circleBlindnessPower (physics)Law and economicsPublic relationsPolitical scienceSocial psychologySociologyPsychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article defines ethical blindness when considering why otherwise virtuous individuals accept unethical institutional practices. It occurs when individuals possessing organisational power over others promote their self-interests to inhibit or deny promoting the common good. Systems science provides a solution for ethical blindness. It explains why living things possess distributed decision-making to maintain a self-governing existence. Checks and balances are introduced to avoid dysfunctional "group think" or intellectual colonisation. Several Australian case studies are presented. A solution that also improves the wellbeing of all citizens by reducing inequality creates a compelling incentive for politicians to act.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.243
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Behavioural Economics and Social SystemsSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207