Global Living Ethics: Unveiling Practical and Theoretical Synergies Through Reflexive Balancing
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.
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 | 0.073 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.141 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".