MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521787408 · doi:10.22329/il.v29i1.684

Dialectical Shifts Underlying Arguments from Consequences

2009· article· en· W1521787408 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Douglas Walton

Bibliographic record

VenueInformal Logic · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDialogical selfDialog boxArgumentation theoryDialecticEpistemologyComputer sciencePsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eight structural criteria are developed as part of a dialogical method bytesting them against seven examples of arguments from negative consequences. The aim is to provide a method for evaluating thearguments in the examples as fallacious or not. It is shown that any method that can be satisfactorily used to evaluate such examplesneeds to be based on two techniques. The first is careful application of argumentation underlying shifts from one type of dialog to another schemes. The second is consideration of contextual factors concerning.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformal LogicSame topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207