Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Chapter 1 of his book entitled Cortex and Mind: Unifying Cognition , Fuster (2003) introduces a new term called the cognit , which is used to characterize the cognitive structure of a cortical network; it is defined as follows: A cognit is an item of knowledge about the world, the self, or the relations between them. Its network structure is made up of elementary representations of perception or action that have been associated with one another by learning or past experience. Towards the end of Chapter 1 of the book, Fuster goes on to say: … perception is part of the acquisition and retrieval of memory, memory stores information acquired by perception, language and memory depend on each other; language and reasoning are special forms of cognitive action; attention serves all other functions; intelligence is served by all; and so on. These two quotes taken from Fuster's book provide us with a cohesive statement on the cortical functions of cognition in the human brain; both are important. In particular, the second quotation highlights the interrelationships between the five processes involved in cognition: perception, memory, attention, language, and intelligence. Just as language plays a distinctive role in the human brain, so it is in a cognitive dynamic system where language provides the means for effective and efficient communication among the different parts of the system. However, language is outside the scope of this book.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".