Wright's Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Analytical Reading and Reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is not a text which provides another of the countless variations offormal deductive and inductive logic "lite".Neither is a central concern argument diagramming techniques or the study of language use and fallacies.The approach taken by this text differs both in what is emphasized and its underlying model of argument.It is concerned with analytic reading and applying an interrogative model of argument.These two concerns form the basis for division into two major sections.The first deals with analytic reading, paraphrasing, and structuring expository text.The second is concerned with the analysis and evaluation of reasoning.The first portion of the book relies on a set of criteria for essentialness and a taxonomy of dependence or subordination.Chapter I discusses paraphrasing to reduce a passage to its essentials ("the bare-bones paraphrase"), while Chapter 2 lays out the taxonomy of subordination along with conventions and a notation for expressing it.Chapter 3 spells out the portion of the taxonomy of subordination relevant to arguments and introduces some refinements applicable only to texts concerned with reasoning.In getting to the bare-bones paraphrase various types of padding are to be set aside: the setting; background information; definitions; dispensable detail; restatements; illustrations; and frills (p.13).In addition, two principles are provided to assist in the interpretation ofthe passage and justify the addition of necessary material: the principle of applied significance (whenever we say something we imply it is significant) and the principle of charity (maximize plausibility).Armed with this notion of essential paraphrase, four main types of subordination of a secondary point (SP) to a main point (MP) are considered in Chapter 2: [s] support or argument; [e] cause of, or explanation for; ©
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".