MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1495223504 · doi:10.1017/9781316755808

Logicism Renewed

2017· book· en· W1495223504 on OpenAlexaff
Paul C. Gilmore

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecursion (computer science)Computer scienceFoundations of mathematicsEpistemologyComputational logicProgramming languageType theoryMathematical logicCalculus (dental)Type (biology)PhilosophyDescription logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since their inception, the Perspectives in Logic and Lecture Notes in Logic series have published seminal works by leading logicians. Many of the original books in the series have been unavailable for years, but they are now in print once again. Logicism, as put forward by Bertrand Russell, was predicated on a belief that all of mathematics can be deduced from a very small number of fundamental logical principles. In this volume, the twenty-third publication in the Lecture Notes in Logic series, Paul C. Gilmore revisits logicism in light of recent advances in mathematical logic and theoretical computer science. Gilmore addresses the need for languages which can be understood by both humans and computers and, using Intensional Type Theory (ITT), provides a unified basis for mathematics and computer science. This yields much simpler foundations for recursion theory and the semantics of computer programs than those currently provided by category theory.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.013
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.182 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207