Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Knowing Otherwise, Alexis Shotwell correctly points out that propositional knowledge (i.e., knowledge in the form of claims that are either true-or false) does not exhaust all possible ways of understanding or meaning-making.Another way that meaning can be constructed or deciphered is through what Shotwell refers to as "implicit knowledge."The main thrust of Shotwell's argument is that everyone, from philosophers to social activists, should pay closer attention to this form of knowledge because this implicit form of knowledge enjoys a kind of primacy that propositional knowledge does not.As Shotwell writes:The implicit is what provides the conditions for things to make sense to us.The implicit provides the framework through which it is possible to form propositions and also to evaluate them as true or false, and is thus instrumentally important.Implicit understanding is also non-instrumentally important.It not only helps provide the conditions for propositional work, it also occupies its own epistemic and political terrain, and in itself is vital to flourishing.That is, living well involves substantial implicit content, perhaps unspeakable but central to the felt experience of manifesting dignity, joy, and contingent freedoms.(x-xi) While this epistemological insight is not in-itself new, what distinguishes Shotwell's contribution from that of other similar projects is her insistence on a four-part division of implicit knowledge.According to Shotwell, implicit knowledge is divided into the following four categories: skill-based (i.e., practical knowledge), habitus (i.e., somatic or bodily knowing), potentially propositional (i.e., knowledge that could be, but is not yet in propositional form), and
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".