MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7127146086 · doi:10.5860/choice.240037

Review Of "Engaging Raz: Themes In Normative Philosophy" Edited By A. Marmor, K. Brownlee, And D. Enoch

2025· article· W7127146086 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hans Oberdiek

Bibliographic record

VenueWorks - Scholarship, Research, & Creative Expression (Swarthmore College) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophical Ethics and Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenness to experienceNormativeEconomic JusticePoliticsInterrogation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the 1970s until his death in 2022, Joseph Raz shaped more than a generation of thinking regarding jurisprudence, political and moral philosophy, and practical reason. His originality, incisive argumentation, and openness to having his views challenged and developed by others mark him as a highly innovative thinker. In Engaging Raz, editors Marmor (Cornell Univ.), Brownlee (Univ. of British Columbia, Canada), and Enoch (Hebrew Univ., Israel) bring together essays on all these topics and more by 21 highly regarded contemporary philosophers. The essays, each roughly 20 pages or more, are divided into six categories where Raz’s contributions are most significant: "Normativity and Values," "Practical Reasoning," "Agency and Autonomy," "Rights and Obligations," "The Public Domain," and "Authority." Each contributor engages with Raz’s views by challenging them, modifying them, and/or developing them further. This short review cannot do justice to this magnificent collection except to say that it should be on the shelves of all major research institutions and law schools, and read avidly by anyone engaged in any of the subjects listed above. Collections of this sort tend to be uneven; happily, this volume is exceptional as each essay is first-rate. Summing Up: Highly recommended. Graduate students, faculty, and professionals.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.304 · 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
GenreReview

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 venueWorks - Scholarship, Research, & Creative Expression (Swarthmore College)Same topicPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryFrench-language works237,207