MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412537762 · doi:10.1093/analys/anae050

Relational virtues and the charge of normative superfluity

2024· article· en· W4412537762 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed Mohammad Yarandi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalysis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical Ethics and Theory
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeCharge (physics)LiteraturePhilosophyArtEpistemologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Intimate relationships play a significant role in our lives and, like other aspects of human existence, they come with their own demands. Inspired by East Asian ethical thought, a group of philosophers believe that we require distinct virtues, called relational virtues, to explain the disposition to respond appropriately to the demands of intimate relationships. A significant concern regarding relational virtues is that they are normatively superfluous. That is, their demands entirely overlap with those of familiar virtues such as patience and benevolence. To evaluate this charge, I present two tests to identify normatively superfluous virtues. The first test is based on an analogy with skills, while the second is based on the action-guiding power of virtues. I will show that both tests indicate that relational virtues are normatively superfluous.

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 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 score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalysisSame topicPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryFrench-language works237,207