Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper’s central question is whether trust can have inherent moral value. While traditional views emphasize trust’s instrumental value in extending our agential capacities, a new perspective suggests that trust is also a way to convey respect to those we trust. This paper defends the view that full-blooded trust—trust grounded in the belief that the trustee is trustworthy—always involves appraisal respect: a positive evaluative attitude toward the trustee’s moral character or conduct. I argue that this respect confers a distinctive moral value on full-blooded trust, one that is absent in forms of trust without belief, such as therapeutic or recalcitrant trust, even if they may still be instrumentally valuable. Full-blooded trust is the paradigm of trust because it uniquely affirms the trustee as worthy of moral regard and serves as a kind of mirror, helping individuals sustain self-respect by recognizing themselves as worthy of trust. Nonetheless, even full-blooded trust can lack recognition respect, the respect owed to others simply in virtue of their agency. It can thus still be morally flawed, all things considered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.822 | 0.773 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".