MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3005260989 · doi:10.33137/js.v3i0.33621

Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy

2019· article· en· W3005260989 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.

Notice bibliographique

RevueScientonomy Journal for the Science of Science · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiquePhilosophy and History of Science
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEpistemologyEpistemic communityOntologyEpistemic virtueEpistemic modal logicPhilosophy of scienceComputer sciencePhilosophyArtificial intelligencePolitical sciencePolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The only subtype of epistemic agent currently recognized within scientonomy is community. The place of both individuals and epistemic tools in the scientonomic ontology is yet to be clarified. This paper extends the scientonomic ontology to include epistemic agents and epistemic tools as well as their relationship to one another. Epistemic agent is defined as an agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements. These stances must be taken intentionally, that is, based on a semantic understanding of the epistemic element in question and its available alternatives, with reason, and for the purpose of acquiring knowledge. I argue that there can be both communal and individual epistemic agents. Epistemic agents are linked by relationships of authority delegation based on their differing areas of expertise. Having established the role of epistemic agents in the process of scientific change, I then turn to the role of epistemic tools, such as a thermometer, a text, or a particle accelerator in epistemic activities. I argue that epistemic tools play a different role in scientific change than do epistemic agents. This role is specified by an agent’s employed method. A physical object or system is an epistemic tool for some epistemic agent if there is a procedure by which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of the agent. An agent is said to rely on such a tool.
 Suggested Modifications
 [Sciento-2019-0014]: Accept the following definition of epistemic agent:
 
 Epsitemic Agent ≡ an agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements.
 
 [Sciento-2019-0015]: Accept that there are two types of epistemic agents – individual and communal. Also accept the following question as a legitimate topic of scientonomic inquiry:
 
 Applicability of the Laws of Scientific Change to Individuals: do the scientonomic laws apply to individual epistemic agents?
 
 [Sciento-2019-0016]: Accept the term epistemic tool, with the following definition:
 
 Epistemic Tool ≡ a physical object or system is an epistemic tool for an epistemic agent, when there is a procedure by which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent.
 
 [Sciento-2019-0017]: Accept the following definition of authority delegation, which generalizes the currently accepted definition to apply to all epistemic agents:
 
 Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agent A is said to be delegating authority over question x to epistemic agent B iff (1) agent A accepts that agent B is an expert on question x and (2) agent A will accept a theory answering question x if agent B says so.
 
 Also accept the following redefinitions of subtypes of authority delegation, including mutual authority delegation, one-sided authority delegation, singular authority delegation, multiple authority delegation, hierarchical authority delegation, and non-hierarchical authority delegation:
 
 Mutual Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of mutual authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, and B delegates authority over question y to A.
 One-Sided Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, but B doesn’t delegate any authority to A.
 Singular Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to exactly one epistemic agent.
 Multiple Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of multiple authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to more than one epistemic agents.
 Hierarchical Authority Delegation ≡ a sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated different degrees of authority over question x.
 Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation ≡ a sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated the same degree of authority over question x.
 
 [Sciento-2019-0018]: Accept the relationship of tool reliance can obtain between epistemic agents and epistemic tools. Accept the following definition of tool reliance:
 
 Tool Reliance ≡ an epistemic agent is said to rely on an epistemic tool when there is a procedure through which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante
Catégories consensuellesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,461
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,035
Communication savante0,0020,006
Science ouverte0,0040,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,095
Tête enseignante GPT0,295
Écart entre enseignants0,200 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle