MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414240837 · doi:10.22329/cjpp.v12i1.10468

MacIntyre, Moore and the Fact-Value Distinction

2025· article· en· W4414240837 on OpenAlexaff
J. P. Du Plessis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Practical Philosophy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)PropositionKey (lock)CompatibilismConsequentialismIncompatibilism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I outline Moore’s view of the good, including his self-evident Intuitions and how they link to action. I then show that MacIntyre’s critique of Moore has several weaknesses. By examining MacIntyre’s arguments in Ethics in the Conflicts of Modernity, we see that, in fact, both MacIntyre and Moore rely on unproven evaluative propositions to make their arguments. However, Moore’s view has the advantage of being very explicit about which propositions are self-evident and how to justify them, whereas MacIntyre’s argument obfuscates the need for self-evident evaluative propositions.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.042
Scholarly communication0.0080.014
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Practical PhilosophySame topicEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsFrench-language works237,207