MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sortal Quality

2025· book· en· W4413160136 on OpenAlexaff
David Hunter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Philosophy and Science
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Computer sciencePhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The book is about the nature of what it calls “sortal quality,” one kind of goodness, and explores its links to pleasure, to desire, and to the ideal of a morally good person. Sortal quality is what we have in mind when we say that a novel is good, that a plant is in excellent health, or that something tastes terrific. It contrasts with what philosophers have traditionally called intrinsic, simple, or absolute goodness. This book shows how sortal quality grounds both pleasure and desire. It ends by exploring what a moral theory might say that put the ideal of a good person, considered as a case of sortal quality, at its heart.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.004

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicHistorical Philosophy and ScienceFrench-language works237,207