Publications
14 peer-reviewed articles published online or formally accepted in 2026, including 4 in Level 2 channels. Each entry names its journal, its contribution to the programme, and — where relevant — the concept it develops. Metadata is verified against NVA (Nasjonalt vitenarkiv).
Drafts, working papers, and items in preparation are kept separately on the research notes page. The canonical record is on the academic profile page.
Filtered archive
Capacities that must already be in place for institutions and technologies to function: judgment, moral standing, responsibility, object constitution, answerability.
Recovers the gifted subject — an agency constituted through reception and response — against a self taken to be exhaustively self-authored or exhaustively optimised.
Distinguishes cases in which responsibility is refused from cases in which the institutional conditions for responsibility to arise at all are absent from the outset.
Develops the partition thesis: criteria of moral standing determine who is considerable but do not by themselves generate priority among those admitted.
Case · Ontocentric information ethics serves as the maximal test of the thesis.
Principal current manuscript. Identifies the institutional site at which answerability must be borne once reasoning is delegated to automated procedures, and shows how nominal oversight can leave that site vacant.
Specifies four conditions on a maintenance license — the entitlement to treat a predictive output as a ground for a given intervention — and shows that predictive accuracy does not by itself confer any of them.
Case · AI-driven predictive maintenance in industrial asset management serves as the applied test case.
Read the abstract & argument →
Studies how ontological commitments organise the space in which normative orderings can be constructed at all.
Argues that answerability requires an addressable record — not merely an explainable output — and reconstructs institutional recordkeeping as a moral infrastructure.
Formulates a criterion of design–inference alignment: the inferences licensed by an empirical design must not exceed the constitution of its object.
Sketches a general account of how the constitution of scientific objects constrains the inferences that can be drawn about them.
Reconstructs friction as a productive, not merely obstructive, feature of institutional systems and shows what its removal costs.
Proposes an organic account of institutional interfaces against a purely mechanical API metaphor.