Bibliographic record
Abstract
ary Ostertag's review of my book, Bertrand Russell on Modality and Logical GRel evance, turns everything he discusses upside down.Thus I am glad that he also ignores over nine tenths of my book.Ostertag says, "It appears then, that Russell is, if anything, hostile to the idea that modality plays a fundamental role in logic" (his p. ).Right.I agree three times (my pp.-, -, ), and I quote Russell's hostility twice (my pp., ).But Ostertag bafflingly proclaims, "Dejnožka holds the very opposite.Not only does Russell embrace modality, he espouses a variety of modal logics" (his p. ).Wrong.I repeatedly proclaim that Russell rejects all modal notions or modal entities, with the sole exception of goodness in his early ethics (my p. ).And I never say he espouses a modal logic.What then do I find in Russell?Logically implicit modal logics!I say, "All seven of the modal logics I find implicit in Russell … seem closest to S" (p.).I say, "I define seven modal logics which may be implicitly attributed to Russell" (p.).I indicate seven times that I am discussing logically implicit modal logics (my pp., , twice, , , quoting Magnell on my views).Even Ostertag unwittingly quotes me as engaged only in formal "paraphrase" (my p. , his p. ).I state the basic message in the Introduction of my book: Russell's idea is simple: to use notions of ordinary quantificational logic to define and analyze away modal notions.Modal notions are eliminated across the board.The individual ("existential") and universal quantifiers are used to simulate and replace modal notions….Literally speaking, Russell has banished modality from logic.Yet functionally speaking, Russell has achieved a modal logic based on a rich and sophisticated theory of modality….
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 | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.056 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
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".