A complement to blame

Contracts, gradual typing, and hybrid typing all permit less-precisely typed and more-precisely typed code to interact. Blame calculus encompasses these, and guarantees blame safety: blame for type errors always lays with less-precisely typed code. This paper serves as a complement to the literature on blame calculus: it elaborates on motivation, comments on the reception of the work, critiques some work for not properly attending to blame, and looks forward to applications. No knowledge of contracts, gradual typing, hybrid typing, or blame calculus is assumed

Finding fault: causality and counterfactuals in group attributions.

Attributions of responsibility play a critical role in many group interactions. This paper explores the role of causal and counterfactual reasoning in blame attributions in groups. We develop a general framework that builds on the notion of pivotality: an agent is pivotal if she could have changed the group outcome by acting differently. In three experiments we test successive refinements of this notion - whether an agent is pivotal in close possible situations and the number of paths to achieve pivotality. In order to discriminate between potential models, we introduced group tasks with asymmetric structures. Some group members were complements (for the two to contribute to the group outcome it was necessary that both succeed) whereas others were substitutes (for the two to contribute to the group outcome it was sufficient that one succeeds). Across all three experiments we found that people's attributions were sensitive to the number of paths to pivotality. In particular, an agent incurred more blame for a team loss in the presence of a successful complementary peer than in the presence of a successful substitute

Causal Responsibility and Counterfactuals.

How do people attribute responsibility in situations where the contributions of multiple agents combine to produce a joint outcome? The prevalence of over-determination in such cases makes this a difficult problem for counterfactual theories of causal responsibility. In this article, we explore a general framework for assigning responsibility in multiple agent contexts. We draw on the structural model account of actual causation (e.g., Halpern & Pearl, 2005) and its extension to responsibility judgments (Chockler & Halpern, 2004). We review the main theoretical and empirical issues that arise from this literature and propose a novel model of intuitive judgments of responsibility. This model is a function of both pivotality (whether an agent made a difference to the outcome) and criticality (how important the agent is perceived to be for the outcome, before any actions are taken). The model explains empirical results from previous studies and is supported by a new experiment that manipulates both pivotality and criticality. We also discuss possible extensions of this model to deal with a broader range of causal situations. Overall, our approach emphasizes the close interrelations between causality, counterfactuals, and responsibility attributions

“The algorithm will screw you”: Blame, social actors and the 2020 A Level results algorithm on Twitter

In August 2020, the UK government and regulation body Ofqual replaced school examinations with automatically computed A Level grades in England and Wales. This algorithm factored in school attainment in each subject over the previous three years. Government officials initially stated that the algorithm was used to combat grade inflation. After public outcry, teacher assessment grades used instead. Views concerning who was to blame for this scandal were expressed on the social media website Twitter. While previous work used NLP-based opinion mining computational linguistic tools to analyse this discourse, shortcomings included accuracy issues, difficulties in interpretation and limited conclusions on who authors blamed. Thus, we chose to complement this research by analysing 18,239 tweets relating to the A Level algorithm using Corpus Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), underpinned by social actor representation. We examined how blame was attributed to different entities who were presented as social actors or having social agency. Through analysing transitivity in this discourse, we found the algorithm itself, the UK government and Ofqual were all implicated as potentially responsible as social actors through active agency, agency metaphor possession and instances of passive constructions. According to our results, students were found to have limited blame through the same analysis. We discuss how this builds upon existing research where the algorithm is implicated and how such a wide range of constructions obscure blame. Methodologically, we demonstrated that CL and CDA complement existing NLP-based computational linguistic tools in researching the 2020 A Level algorithm; however, there is further scope for how these approaches can be used in an iterative manner

The Duende in England: Lorca’s “Blood Wedding” in Translation

Transporting the passionate instinctual world of rural Andalusia onto the cold rational terrain of modern-day England would seem to be a feat fraught with difficulties. The ‘conceptual grid’ is so different, that we might expect most of the symbolic depth and intensity of the play to be lost. Yet, in recent years, there has been a massive interest in Lorca’s works, and in this play in particular, with numerous translations and productions. How can we account for this? Does the tale of a blood feud in Andalusia really have something to say to a British audience, or is Lorca’s work being appropriated to serve some other purpose on the home agenda? And above all, what happens to the duende - that ‘mysterious power which everyone senses and no philosopher explains’ - in a society where the dark forces of nature have been almost entirely tamed by the Apollonian power of human reason

Introducing visual participatory methods to develop local knowledge on HIV in rural South Africa

The authors would also like to acknowledge the field staff at the MRC/Wits Agincourt unit, particularly Ms Rirhandzu Debs and Dr Kerstin Edin from the Umeå Centre for Global Health Research, Umeå University, who facilitated data collection and made important contributions to the fieldwork.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Properly Proleptic Blame

Crucially, blame can be addressed to its targets, as an implicit demand for recognition. But when we ask whether offenders would actually appreciate this demand, via a sound deliberative route from their existing motivations, we face a puzzle. If they would, their offense reflects a deliberative mistake, and blame’s hostility seems unnecessary. If they wouldn’t, addressing them is futile, and blame’s emotional engagement seems unwarranted. To resolve this puzzle, I develop an account of blame as a proleptic response to indeterminacy in its target’s reasons, yielding attractive accounts of blame’s relation both to internal reasons claims and to free will

Competencies for Improving Construction Performance: theories and practice for developing capacity

The focus on improving construction performance has been narrow in many nations using partnering,leanness and supply chain management. This paper asks three practical construction related questionsconcerning reinventing the wheel across projects, blame culture and continuity of service. In addressingthese practical issues, three theories are engaged: organisational learning, emotional intelligence andrelationship management. The solutions are enhanced through applying the concepts and, indeed, thereis synergy between the concepts. The solutions require investment for the expected return, the theoreticalsynergy maximising the benefits from the investment. It is argued that such an approach has as much, ifnot more chance, to yield improvement in construction. The starting point are issues faced in constructionand theory is induced through addressing the problems, rather than starting with concepts applied inother sectors and then trying to squeeze them into the construction context