MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413001238 · doi:10.1163/17455243-20254686

A Theory of Imposition

2025· article· en· W4413001238 on OpenAlex
Andrew Sneddon

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

VenueJournal of Moral Philosophy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical Ethics and Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is a commonplace that sometimes our behavior imposes on others and that this is worth avoiding. However, just how we impose and why it might matter have not been much studied. Philosophers have started to rectify this. Matti Häyry and Amanda Sukenick address imposition as part of a defense of antinatalism (2023). More extensively, Fiona Woollard provides an account of imposition and contends that it is the foundation for the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing, according to which doing harm is more difficult to justify than allowing it (2015). The present project offers a theory of imposition, composed of an account of its nature and an explanation of why it is significant. I argue that the extant work on imposition has operated with inadequate understandings of its nature. While the antinatalist argument of Häyry and Sukenick can be preserved when combined with an adequate view of imposition, Woollard’s case for dda must be abandoned.

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 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 score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.212 · 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