Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1903, G. E. Moore provoked generations of philosophers by placing goodness at the centre of ethics. Derek Parfit, Jonathan Dancy and T. M. Scanlon did the same nearly a century later using reasons. Now, Conor McHugh and Jonathan Way have followed suit by resurrecting broader interest in fittingness. Their lucid and comprehensive Getting Things Right argues that the normative realm is built atop fitting attitudes, i.e., that fittingness – not goodness, not ‘oughts’, not reasons – explains all normative claims. The title states the book’s guiding idea that an attitude is fitting just when ‘it gets things right’. An attitude gets things right, according to the authors, when it matches its object, where different objects match with different attitudes in different ways. For example, a belief matches its object when the object is a fact; a desire matches its object when the object is desirable; a fear matches its object when that object is fearsome and so on. An attitude is fitting, we are led to think, when ordained by the world through this match. McHugh and Way approvingly cite Selim Berker’s metaphors of a puzzle piece fitting into place or a key fitting a lock to further illustrate this guiding idea (2022a: 77).
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".