MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413001221 · doi:10.1163/17455243-20254670

On Being Entitled

2025· article· en· W4413001221 on OpenAlexaff
Katie Stockdale

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Moral Philosophy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Entitlement is ubiquitous in social life. We see people behaving in entitled ways all the time, claiming privileges and resources at the expense of other people. But there is a question about what it is that makes people disposed to behave this way. Several philosophers have characterized entitlement as a manifestation of arrogance, where arrogance involves a belief in or sense of superiority to other people. Drawing upon a range of paradigm cases of entitlement, I show that entitlement cannot be adequately explained in terms of agents’ sense of themselves as superior. I suggest that entitlement is marked by a particular failure of moral appreciation. People who are entitled habitually, and culpably, fail to appreciate the overriding moral significance of other people’s rights, needs, and interests to what they themselves are owed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Moral PhilosophySame topicPolitical Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207