MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414240501 · doi:10.22329/cjpp.v3i1.8172

Opposites

2023· article· en· W4414240501 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Practical Philosophy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)SketchAttunementPhenomenonEconomic JusticeMoral imperativeContractualismMoral standards

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Irony appears to be deeply rooted in the practice of ethics. Attempts to prescribe morally obligatory duties, and to will morally justified actions, often bring about the opposite of their intended result. Imposing imperatives, e.g., justice, in efforts to produce fair, equitable, caring societies, inadvertently plants seeds of failure. The imposition of moral imperatives increasingly appears to generate polarities rather than unities, as cases of abortion, euthanasia, reactions to liberal immigration, and environmental protection policies have illustrated. Imposed imperatives generate counter imperatives and counterclaims of having justice on “our” side. I attempt here to explain this phenomenon and, in the process, argue that attempts to resolve such conflicts by defending one’s position against its opposition is, in a certain way, destructive of moral life. I conclude with a sketch of how an ethic of attunement can help rectify this problem.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.224 · 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