Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between ethics and politics is one of the most important and at the same time subtlest issues in the domain of political philosophy.Ibn Miskawayh Razi and Khajeh Nizamolmolk Tusi are known with two different approaches (the former is known in theoretical politics while the latter is known in political practice).This essay seeks to show their points of difference and commonalities on the relationship of ethics and politics with regard to their different approaches.Miskawayh is an advocate of a closer relationship between ethics and politics and thus ethical politics based on his guidance based politics.Accordingly, his views are more philosophical and religious and it is better to be called Islamic Wisdom approach.A review of the effects and conclusions of the research in the second part of the thesis has more clarified our mind regarding this conclusion.Khajeh Nizamolmolk, on the other hand, insists on power based politics and based on this notion of politics he prioritizes politics over ethics and prefers to pursue political ethics although we can find also ethical orations in his works.However, these ethical orations only have thematic value and are of instrumental bent.They have indeed been intended to solve the practical issue of the community and no moral intention underlies it.Miskawayh's thought has pioneered and theorized the notion of civil ethics and Khajeh's political heritage should be sought for in his pieces of advice regarding the necessity of justice and social order.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.943 | 0.941 |
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".