MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W173673683

The key to Pierce's view of the role of belief in scientific inquiry

2005· article· en· W173673683 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Migotti

Bibliographic record

VenueCognitio. Revista de filosofia · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy and History of Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyRest (music)Key (lock)Philosophy of sciencePhilosophyPragmatismComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the first of his 1898 Cambridge Conference lectures, Peirce declares that “what is properly and usually called belief [...] has no place in science at all.” Christopher Hookway and Cheryl Misak think that this thesis is ill advised; implausible in itself and out of keeping with the rest of Peirce’s philosophy. I argue on the contrary that proper understanding of Peirce’s distinction between two kinds of “holding for true”, the one practical and committed, the other theoretical and provisional, reveals the thesis in question – the claim that the former kind of holding for true “has no place in science” – to be both plausible and Peircean.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCognitio. Revista de filosofiaSame topicPhilosophy and History of ScienceFrench-language works237,207