MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE FABRICATION METAPHOR

2008· article· en· W1632817046 on OpenAlexaff
D. Goldstick

Bibliographic record

VenueRatio · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsMuscular Dystrophy CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorEpistemologyCommitPhilosophyPerceptionRealismProcess (computing)Cognitive scienceProduct (mathematics)Computer sciencePsychologyMathematicsTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modern philosophers have often likened perception/cognition to a fabrication process. But disanalogy can be seen in the fact that in real fabrication the raw materials get used up, being literally present in the product. The metaphor has arguably misled both ‘logical construction’ philosophizing and epistemology influenced by the fabrication view's arch‐exponent, Kant. In fact, though, there isn't any reason to trace the results of our cognitive processes to inversely varying inputs from ‘the world’ and ‘the mind’ in such a way as to commit realism to the cognizing mind's ‘passivity’.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.020
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.004

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRatioSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207