MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117147048 · doi:10.5206/fpq/2024.1/2.18719

A Taxonomy of Oppressive Praise

2024· article· W7117147048 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hannah McHugh

Bibliographic record

VenueFeminist Philosophy Quarterly · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFree Will and Agency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraiseBlameNormativeAttributionCriticism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theories of moral responsibility have often assumed that praise does not require justification in the way that blame might. In line with recent accounts, this article argues that praise does require such justification. Oppressive praise is an erroneous attribution of moral or normative responsibility that contributes to the production and reproduction of oppressive and dominating structures. This article provides a taxonomy of oppressive praising practices. Oppressive praise will track and enforce oppressive norms. It can be categorized into that which misrecognizes an agent as either (1) less deserving of praise (“underrecognition”) or (2) more deserving of praise (“overrecognition”) than would be consistent with nonoppressive norms. Two further normative concerns are addressed: first, the conditions under which disingenuous praise will be oppressive; and second, where issues of standing to praise do and do not arise.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.218 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFeminist Philosophy QuarterlySame topicFree Will and AgencyFrench-language works237,207