MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412842368 · doi:10.1177/1470594x251355118

Parental justice: A Rawlsian proposal

2025· article· en· W4412842368 on OpenAlex
Louis‐Philippe Hodgson

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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitics Philosophy & Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticeLaw and economicsSociologyLawEconomicsPolitical scienceCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discussions of parental justice typically start from the thought that when people become parents through voluntary choices, they are presumptively responsible for the costs of raising their children. This responsibility-based argument is often presented as innocuous. I argue that it actually denotes a highly contentious view of how voluntary choices relate to the demands of justice, and that this view is particularly problematic regarding the kind of choices at stake in parental justice. In light of these concerns, I contend that the literature on parental justice would benefit from a Rawlsian turn. To negotiate this turn, we must acknowledge that the significance of the choice to have children depends on the justice of the institutional background against which it is made—not the other way around. The first question of parental justice is therefore not what responsibility parents should bear for their choices, but rather how a just institutional order would define the rights, duties, and responsibilities associated with the social position parent . I outline how a Rawlsian theory of parental justice might tackle this question.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.297 · 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