MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science

2015· article· en· W1514905511 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard DeWitt, Jutta Schickore

Bibliographic record

VenueAestimatio Sources and Studies in the History of Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistory and philosophy of sciencePhilosophy of scienceHistory of scienceEngineering ethicsEpistemologySociologyPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

intends his book Worldviews for beginners in history and philosophy of science.His ambitious aim is to provide an accessible and enjoyable introduction to fundamental issues in history, philosophy, and science, as well as to draw out the connections between these fields.The time frame is broad, the three parts of the book spanning the period from around 300 BC until today.The focus is on physics and, more specifically, astronomy.Part 1 introduces in a non-technical way some key philosophical concepts and problems, which include: the notions of worldview, truth, and underdetermination; facts and evidence; the problem of induction; and the attitudes of instrumentalism and realism.Part 2 offers a survey of the main views on the physical structure of the universe.It begins with the Aristotelian conception and outlines the transition from the Ptolemaic to the Newtonian system (via Copernicus, Tycho, Kepler, and Galileo).Part 3 covers important recent developments in the sciences, namely, relativity theory, quantum theory, and evolutionary theory.The book ends with useful bibliographical notes and suggestions for further readings on each chapter.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.007

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.146 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Science and technology studies

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther · Review

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

Citations82
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAestimatio Sources and Studies in the History of ScienceSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineCategoryScience and technology studiesFrench-language works237,207