Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a response to the question that where is the justice position in the Aristotle's political thought?Answering this question is important because justice is the fundamental concept in ethical, social philosophies and old-new political thoughts.Aristotle tends to a way in which the ideas of "equality "and "moderation " are included.Also his deep impact on the Muslim philosopher's political thoughts adds to the importance of the Aristotle's justice theory.The research hypothesis is that Aristotle's justice theory roots from ontology.Aristotle's ethics, Greek custom and in his view, justice are meaningful based on the natural model in his ontology.This article's findings which have been obtained by a descriptive-analytical method show that Aristotle divides justice into two general and strict meanings.Justice in general sense consists of respect laws and citizen's equality which is called virtue set.Justice in strict sense is divided into corrective and distributive types: distributive justice affects the distribution of honor, money and other things among people who have shares in the political system.Corrective justice plays a role in correcting the transactions and communications among people.In Aristotle's view, justice is to follow proportionality and treat equalities equally and inequalities unequally.Endowments and facilities are being distributed proportional to the people's equalities and inequalities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.909 | 0.889 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".