Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewing a Festschrift is a rare and precious honor, allowing the reviewer to add his voice, however small, to the chorus of intellectual praise that the volume is meant to convey.This is certainly the case with this collection of nineteen cutting-edge contributions on several aspects of argumentation theory, dedicated to the career and achievements of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson, among the pioneers of informal logic.Aside from sheer scientific excellence, the chief virtue of this volume lies in the variety of topics investigated by its contributors, who also happen to represent almost every existing approach to the study of argument.Such diversity is, of course, also the main limitation of this collection.Any reader looking for well-focused treatment of a single topic or extensive coverage of any specific theory will be better off looking elsewhere.On the other hand, anyone interested in braving the richly diverse landscape of argumentation theories will find here an excellent vantage point.Besides, the open-ended structure of the book reflects the scope of interests addressed in their long career by the scholars to whom the volume is dedicated.The fact that some contributions are only loosely related to the works of Blair and Johnson just adds to the variety, without subtracting from the quality-which is, without exception, excellent.Indeed, the sole person who might complain for this kaleidoscopic abundance is the reviewer of this book, who faces the arduous task of concisely presenting so many diverse contributions, with little hope of finding any systematic connection among them.However, let us try, following the thematic partition suggested by the volume editors, Hansen and Pinto.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.012 |
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".