Methodology & Critical Reflection in Bioethics: Buttressing Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.) with the Thought of Bernard Lonergan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Principles of Biomedical Ethics has for the past forty years been an attractive and popular approach to bioethical issues in the clinical, research, public policy and the academic settings. Despite its widespread acceptance, accessibility and lucrative endeavor, it has been an object of critical study and criticism for its aversion to foundational meta-ethical issues. Bernard Lonergan, a Canadian-Jesuit philosopher, and theologian spent the majority of his career devoted to the structure of human knowing, and its relation to the human good. The thesis seeks to provide an account that Lonergan’s thought can be a complementary asset for principlism. The first half of the thesis focuses on the text Principles of Biomedical Ethics. The second half introduces Lonergan’s role of the dynamic structure of conscious intentionality in coming to know proportionate being, its practical possibilities and concludes with presenting tools of ethical analysis.
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 | 0.040 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".