Global Living Ethics: Unveiling Practical and Theoretical Synergies Through Reflexive Balancing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploring the complex landscape of bioethics, this article combines the theoretical insights of the Potterian Global Bio-Ethics approach with bioethics research methods, aiming for actionable ethical compromises in governance. The Potterian approach transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries, adopting John Dewey’s pragmatist view, and bringing into convergence philosophical and empirical methods. I advocate for a synergy between micro-scale local-empirical and macro-scale global-rational approaches. Presenting a hands-on case for bioethicists, I emphasize a ‘Global’ bioethics perspective, grounded at the individual scale. Drawing on concepts like ‘boundary-object’ and ‘hybrid community’ from Susan Star and Michel Callon, I propose a reflexive methodology with tools for mapping, framing, and shaping ethical inquiries, to avoid fallacies and embed values in problem-solving. This approach strives to connect meta-ethical reflections with daily bioethical challenges, promoting a coherent, reflexive, and pragmatic methodology.
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 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 | 0.026 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it