MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414239597 · doi:10.22329/cjpp.v10i1.8452

Preface to Canadian Journal of Practical Philosophy (CJPP), Volume 10, 2023

2023· article· en· W4414239597 on OpenAlex

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Practical Philosophy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthosDignityPillarService (business)LiabilityNobility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this Volume, we are pleased to present a sequel to Volume 9, “Eclectic Topics in Practical Philosophy: Issues and Perspectives” (2023). Volume 10 contains two special papers: 1) “Ultimate Integrity” by Christopher M. Maier and “The State of Court Administration in Ontario: A Preliminary Analysis of the Post-COVID Environment in the Ontario Court of Justice,” by Bruce Preston. In the first paper, Christopher Maier argues that unlimited liability (UL), a pillar of the ethos of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) which obligates service members to accept as legally binding orders that may result in their death, is problematic and needs to be replaced by an alternate notion: ultimate integrity (UI). At worse, UL provides reasons for actions through veiled threats. At best, UL is unexceptional and unhelpful because it pushes service members to make rational, outcome-based decisions from a personal point of view. An ethos based on UI is more appropriate to the CAF, the first principle of which is to ‘respect the dignity of all persons,’ and better corresponds with deeply held beliefs about the nobility of military sacrifice. The paper concludes by recommending that UI replace UL as a mainstay of CAF ethics. In the second paper, Bruce Preston argues that the delay and backlog with which Canadian courts have been struggling for decades, became worse during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now that the pandemic has been declared over, we have an opportunity to take stock of where things stand. Focusing on the Ontario Court of Justice, and the decision of R. v C.L., this paper argues that judges are doing all they can under the circumstances to facilitate the disposition of cases. Any improvement to current conditions will require a renewed discussion of alternate models of court administration and judicial independence. The paper concludes that it is time to take a fresh look at the recommendations of Jules Deschênes’ and Carl Baar’s Masters in Their Own House (1981) and the Canadian Judicial Council’s Administering Justice for the Public (2007). These papers are special by virtue of their topics and the respective contributions they make to practical philosophy.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.196
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.196
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.010

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 head0.205
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.281 · 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