Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a dictionary for students of logic.It covers a range of logical and logicrelated topics which may be put in these four categories: (a) brief surveys of logical systems like propositional logic, quantificational logic, belief logic, deontic logic, mereology, modal logic, etc., (b) explanations of common logical terminology such as argument, contrapositive, entailment, fallacy, validity, etc., in addition to (c) very short sketches of the contributions of important logicians like Aristotle, Barcan Markus, Boole, Frege, Kripke, Quine, and Russell, and (d) some entries indicating the role of logic in fields outside logic proper, e.g., logic and God, logic and mind, logic and computers, and formal ethics.I think the entries are all reasonable, as far as they go.Compared with Kneale and Kneale's The Development of Logic (1962), Gensler's Historical Dictionary is much less ambitious.The Kneales have much more detail and they often go deeper-but theirs is not a dictionary and since their interest is in logic in the narrow sense (see below), they give us only a history of logic in the narrow sense.Boole's work, for example, gets over 10,000 words with the Kneales but only about 550 words in Gensler.Frege gets at least 20,000 words from the Kneales and about from 550 words, plus his own one-page bibliography, in Gensler.However, Gensler's interests, as mentioned, range wider than do the Kneales', and he has the advantage over them of being able to report on the additional growth of logic over the last forty-five years.Unlike the Kneales' history, Gensler's Dictionary is extremely accessible and convenient for someone who just wants to know in outline what, say, deontic logic, or the continuum hypothesis, is.There is something eclectic about Gensler's Dictionary that invites us to compare it with Quine's Quiddities (1987).In addition to what we expect (both books contain
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.047 |
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".