MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7032923579

Onderhandelingsethiek

2007· book-chapter· nl· W7032923579 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languagenl
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDevelopment, Ethics, and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)CeremonyPower (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Onderhandelingsethiek is een theorie over morele compromisvorming via voorwaardelijk onderhandelen. De behoefte aan een dergelijke theorie groeide in de tweede helft van de twintigste eeuw doordat processen van democratisering verschuivingen teweegbrachten in morele gewoontes en in het hanteren van morele normen. Moraliteit werd steeds minder van bovenaf opgelegd, en meer door de betrokkenen intersubjectief vastgesteld. McGill (1969) pleitte al voor het ontwikkelen van onderhandelingsprocessen die passen bij deze morele verschuivingen. De onderhandelingsethiek staat in de traditie van de sociale contracttheorie, maar maakt een ontwikkeling door van hypothetisch naar praktisch.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.207 · 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