MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410480514 · doi:10.1007/s10992-025-09798-3

Mīmāṃsā on ‘better-not’ Permissions

2025· article· en· W4410480514 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Philosophical Logic · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIndian and Buddhist Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaAustrian Science FundEuropean Commission
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The traditional definition of permission as the dual of obligation oversimplifies its many applications, often yielding undesirable consequences. Recent literature recognizes the need to distinguish various types of permissions but often overlooks potential preferences associated with them. In contrast, the Sanskrit philosophical school of Mīmāṃsā refutes the interdefinability of deontic concepts, and asserts that permissions always refer to less desirable actions (‘better-not’ permissions), and are exceptions to prohibitions or negative obligations. This article analyzes the concept of Mīmāṃsā permission, compares it with contemporary theories and formalizes it while carefully preserving its essential characteristics. We transform Mīmāṃsā’s reasoning principles for permission into Hilbert axioms and introduce neighbourhood semantics, incorporating ceteris-paribus preferences. The resulting logic is evaluated against various paradoxes from contemporary deontic logic and applied to a scenario from Sanskrit jurisprudence.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.218 · 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