MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7031465259

From fact to value

2011· article· en· W7031465259 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

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLibraries, Manuscripts, and Books
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)WarrantDenialRelevance (law)Value (mathematics)DualismObjectivity (philosophy)ViewpointsOrder (exchange)Explanatory power
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is my aim to present an argument against the view that there is a strict dualism of FACTS on the one hand and DECISIONS or DEMANDS on the other and to show that there are cases in which an OUGHT can be derived from an IS.
\nI begin by examining the nature of facts in order to determine what they are and what connection there may be between them and events, situations or states of affair. I next examine the question as to whether there is warrant to stipulate a philosophically technical sense of 'pure fact' or the 'merely factual’ and give consideration to the relevance of the concepts of explanatory power and objectivity to this question, concluding that these concepts do not appear to furnish such a warrant.
\nThere follows an argument in support of my opinion that statements of fact presuppose viewpoints which are shared amongst men, thus presupposing in turn some form of community. By discussing several statements of fact and showing their dependence upon institutions or societal arrangements I attempt to support my denial of the claim that specifically MORAL premisses are ALWAYS required in order to derive demands or decisions from statements of fact.
\nIn considering several objections which a dualist might raise against my argument I deal with the question of genetic explanation of moral codes, with some of the possible OUTSIDER positions in respect of moral decisions or demands and with the requirement that rules of formal logic be observed in arriving at moral conclusions. Since I am not denying the strength in the dualist's position in insisting upon an analysis of statements of fact in an attempt to establish 'pure fact' or the 'merely factual' I next examine a restricted form of a dualistic view which deals with the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive contents in statements of fact. This shows that there are indeed sentences cast in the form of statements of fact which seem to have predominantly prescriptive content, and I concede the value of a dualistic analysis to bring this out.
\nI claim that this does not militate against my argument as presented, that there are objective statements of fact from which by virtue of the viewpoint underlying them moral demands or decisions can be derived and that it would be extremely difficult to make intelligible the claim that they were not statements of FACT.
\nIn a speculative postscript I touch upon the problem of overriding moral demands.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.158
Teacher spread0.057 · 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