Bibliographic record
Abstract
P erhaps you are comfortable with the idea that human beings have an empirical prejudice, and that, because of the manner in which methods of empirical inquiry have been systematically developed in the natural sciences, natural scientific claims about a given phenomenon X are generally more reliable than guesses, intuitions, ungrounded assertions, or hearsay. Now, rate your comfort level with each of the following claims: Life on earth originated through the algorithmic process of descent with variation combined with natural selection, as described by Darwin's theory of evolution. Eagle eyeballs are the products of evolution. Human eyeballs are the products of evolution. Human bodies in general are the product of evolution; many physical differences between men and women (e.g., size, upper-body strength, ability to bear children and nurse them) are thus the product of evolution. Human perceptual systems are the product of evolution; many details of the sensory organs and the mind's ability to perceive objects and direct the body to react to them are evolved traits. The human mind in general is the product of evolution; many mental differences (e.g., general IQ, spatial-reasoning skills, emotional empathetic abilities) between individuals are therefore the products of evolution. As products of a blind process of replication and selection, human beings as a whole – body and mind – differ only in degree of complexity from robots or machines: we, like everything in the world, are causally determined, purely physical systems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".