Bibliographic record
Abstract
It seems groups can be proper objects of respect. Can groups themselves manifest respect for other things? In this paper, I argue that some highly structured groups can. I also argue that ‘group respect’ is best understood in non-summative terms – that is, respect-relevant properties can obtain at group-level even if they don’t obtain at the level of individual members of that group, and vice versa. Group respect entails additional group agential phenomena at issue in the ‘non-summativist package of views’ developed in Jessica Brown’s recent book, The Epistemic and Moral Evaluation of Groups (2024). Most notably, group respect entails the possibility of group action for a reason. Since Brown’s is the most developed account of group action for a reason, her account, and the non-summativist package of views it’s linked with, are especially useful in developing an account of group respect. By connecting Brown’s project with group respect, I aim to illuminate the latter while lending further support to Brown’s project in three ways: further demonstrating its unifying power; revealing how it enables a new account of an underexplored group phenomenon; and extending it to important societal issues via social and political upshots of a non-summativist approach to group respect.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".