Codebook
Seed codes carry the dissertation's variables; emergent codes were discovered during coding. Click any code for its node view.
AG — AI agency (79 applications)
Parent: how the source treats AI agency, autonomy, moral status of systems
| AG-UNDERSTANDING emergent | Whether the AI system genuinely understands values/intentions/causal structure (strong alignment) or merely pattern-matches value-language (weak alignment) - b… | 26 / 15 src |
| AG-AGENTIC | Explicitly addresses multi-step, tool-using, delegated-authority agentic AI | 22 / 14 src |
| AG-MORAL-CON | Argues AI systems cannot be moral agents (the dissertation's position) | 20 / 15 src |
| AG-CONSTRAINED emergent | The position that AI can be subject to / guided by normative principles (morally constrained) without being a moral agent that bears praise/blame (morally acco… | 7 / 5 src |
| AG-COLLECTIVE emergent | Effects of many agentic systems interacting: collective autonomy, multi-agent risk, society-level consequences not visible in the dyadic user-agent frame | 3 / 2 src |
| AG-PRE-AGENTIC | Argument assumes single-shot/narrow systems; unclear it survives agentic AI | 1 / 1 src |
| AG-MORAL-PRO | Argues AI systems can bear moral agency/responsibility (the Luke position) | 0 / 0 src |
GAP — Gap markers (30 applications)
Parent: gaps this source leaves that the dissertation can occupy
| GAP-DESC-ONLY | Reports attitudes/practices without deriving or defending normative claims — the is/ought gap Howard flags | 14 / 9 src |
| GAP-AGENTIC-UNTESTED | Pre-2023 framework never revisited for agentic systems — the dissertation's opening | 8 / 6 src |
| GAP-NO-EMPIRICS | Conceptual argument with no engagement with what stakeholders actually think | 8 / 7 src |
NF — Normative framework (41 applications)
Parent: which normative-ethical framework the source invokes or presupposes
| NF-CONTRACT | Source appeals to contractualism, public reason, or overlapping consensus | 14 / 7 src |
| NF-PLURAL-OTHER | Pluralist or hybrid framework not reducible to the above | 13 / 10 src |
| NF-KANT | Source applies Kantian or rule-deontological machinery | 6 / 5 src |
| NF-CONSEQ | Source frames alignment or responsibility in consequentialist terms | 5 / 5 src |
| NF-VIRTUE | Source applies virtue ethics or character-based evaluation | 2 / 2 src |
| NF-ROSS | Source invokes Ross-style pluralism of prima facie duties | 1 / 1 src |
| NF-NONE | Source discusses alignment/responsibility with no articulated normative framework | 0 / 0 src |
RL — Responsibility locus (101 applications)
Parent: where the source locates responsibility for AI-mediated outcomes
| RL-INST | Responsibility located in institutional or regulatory structures (Ferretti-style) | 34 / 22 src |
| RL-DEV | Responsibility assigned to developers/designers | 17 / 13 src |
| RL-LEGITIMACY emergent | Whether those affected have political (democratic-procedural) reason to accept AI outputs: deliberation, meaningful voting, transparency of input-to-policy inf… | 16 / 12 src |
| RL-CONTROL emergent | Control/controllability as a condition on alignment or responsibility: the ability to achieve intended/warranted outcomes and intervene, distinct from mere int… | 11 / 7 src |
| RL-DIST | Distributed/networked account (Dignum-adjacent) across actors | 11 / 9 src |
| RL-EPISTEMIC emergent | Responsibility/liability allocation depends on what an actor understands or can foresee about the system - interpretability and explanation tools therefore RED… | 6 / 5 src |
| RL-SYS | Responsibility (or its gap) attributed to the system | 3 / 2 src |
| RL-USER | Responsibility assigned to users or deploying organizations | 3 / 2 src |
TU — Thesis use (85 applications)
Parent: where in the dissertation this material lands
| TU-METAETH | Feeds the metaethical framework chapter (Ross/Gibbard/convergentism) | 31 / 20 src |
| TU-METHOD | Feeds the xphi/corpus methodology chapter | 29 / 18 src |
| TU-LITREV | Lit-review positioning only | 20 / 16 src |
| TU-HEALTH | Feeds the Health domain chapter | 3 / 3 src |
| TU-IMMIG | Feeds the Immigration domain chapter | 1 / 1 src |
| TU-WORK | Feeds the Work/Employment domain chapter | 1 / 1 src |
VC — Value conception (114 applications)
Parent: what the source takes 'values' to be in value alignment
| VC-PREF | Values operationalized as (revealed/stated/idealized) preferences | 33 / 15 src |
| VC-INTRA-VALUE emergent | A single alignment-target value (e.g. autonomy) fragments into conflicting specifications, so alignment requires choosing between rival interpretations WITHIN … | 25 / 18 src |
| VC-PROC | Values as outputs of a fair procedure rather than a substantive theory (Gabriel's move) | 23 / 9 src |
| VC-THICK emergent | Alignment targets analyzed via the thick/thin concept distinction (Williams/Väyrynen): thin values carry evaluative force without descriptive justification; th… | 11 / 10 src |
| VC-OBJ | Values treated as objective goods independent of preferences | 9 / 6 src |
| VC-ROLE emergent | Alignment target = the normative ideals/criteria appropriate to the AI system's social role or function (assistant, scribe, interviewer...), rather than anyone… | 8 / 6 src |
| VC-LOCI emergent | Source uses or engages Gabriel's taxonomy: instructions / expressed intentions / revealed preferences / informed preferences / interests / values as candidate … | 4 / 4 src |
| VC-EXPRESS | Values as expressed attitudes or norms (Gibbard-adjacent) | 1 / 1 src |
Categories (synthesis layer)
Whether AI systems understand, deliberate, or bear moral agency - the four-tradition denial, the constrained-not-accountable settlement, and the empirical instability record
AG-UNDERSTANDING 26 AG-MORAL-CON 20 AG-CONSTRAINED 7 AG-MORAL-PRO 0Multi-step, delegated, personalised systems as the stress test every pre-agentic framework fails or defers: collective effects, containment-vs-governance responses, the agency-misuse tradeoff
AG-AGENTIC 22 GAP-AGENTIC-UNTESTED 8 AG-COLLECTIVE 3 AG-PRE-AGENTIC 1The is/ought self-criticism, the missing empirical layer, and the machinery for legitimate bridging: filtration, reflective equilibrium, convergence, measurement
TU-METAETH 31 TU-METHOD 29 GAP-DESC-ONLY 14 GAP-NO-EMPIRICS 8 TU-MWRE 5Value pluralism as datum and design constraint: intra-value fragmentation, thick concepts, objective-list elements, role-indexed standards, and the weighing machinery they demand
VC-INTRA-VALUE 25 NF-PLURAL-OTHER 13 VC-THICK 11 VC-OBJ 9 VC-ROLE 8 NF-KANT 6 NF-CONSEQ 5 NF-ROSS-PF 4 NF-VIRTUE 2 NF-ROSS 1 VC-EXPRESS 1Preference-based alignment as the field default and the multi-front critique that has broken it: thin-concept, incommensurability, sycophancy, endogeneity, formal Goodhart results
VC-PREF 33 VC-LOCI 4Fair-process/contractualist successors to preferentism (Gabriel program, deliberative and bargaining variants) and their failure points: encoding gap, stakeholder scoping, expert-corrective regress
VC-PROC 23 RL-LEGITIMACY 16 NF-CONTRACT 14The responsibility question across loci (developer/user/institution/system/distributed) and conditions (control, epistemic access, legitimacy) - affirmed as shared everywhere, allocated nowhere
RL-INST 34 RL-DEV 17 RL-CONTROL 11 RL-DIST 11 RL-EPISTEMIC 6 RL-SYS 3 RL-USER 3