MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402110112 · doi:10.55016/ojs/jet.v15i1.43897

A Philosophy of Mind Adequate for Discourse on Morality: Iris Murdoch's Critique

2018· article· en· W4402110112 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph S. Malikail

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of educational thought. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy and Literary Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoralityIRIS (biosensor)PhilosophyEpistemologySociologyPsychoanalysisPsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moral education has to be based on an adequate philosophy of morality. Such a philosophy of morality includes not only moral philosophy but a plausible philosophy of mind. Iris Murdoch alleges that moral discourse since Kant has been vitiated by a false picture of the human mind. Her critique is primarily concerned with a just understanding of the relationship of mental life to action and of the meaning of moral freedom.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.050
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0160.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of educational thought.Same topicPhilosophy and Literary AnalysisFrench-language works237,207