Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este trabajo ofrece una presentación \n\t\t\t\t general del perfil personal y de la filosofía de Bernard \n\t\t\t\t Lonergan (teólogo y filósofo católico canadiense), \n\t\t\t\t en especial de su teoría cognitiva y su \n\t\t\t\t epistemología. Se centra en la exposición de sus \n\t\t\t\t ideas a partir de su obra filosófica más importante: \n\t\t\t\t Insight: A Study of Human Understanding (Londres \n\t\t\t\t 1957, edición crítica: Toronto 1992). Para \n\t\t\t\t exponer la filosofía del conocer de Lonergan, se \n\t\t\t\t tratan los puntos siguientes: 1. Vida; 2. Influencia; \n\t\t\t\t 3. Obras; 4. Exposición general de la filosofía de \n\t\t\t\t Lonergan; 5. El conocer como objeto de la filosofía; \n\t\t\t\t 6. La auto-apropiación como meta y como \n\t\t\t\t método de la filosofía; 7. Cuestiones filosóficas \n\t\t\t\t fundamentales y jerarquía de las distintas áreas \n\t\t\t\t filosóficas; 8. La teoría cognitiva y la cuestión \n\t\t\t\t cognitiva: a. El método empírico generalizado; b. \n\t\t\t\t La estructura dinámica del conocer (experimentar, \n\t\t\t\t entender, juzgar); 9. La epistemología y la cuestión \n\t\t\t\t epistemológica: a. La finalidad del conocer; \n\t\t\t\t b. La noción de objetividad; 10. La metafísica del \n\t\t\t\t sujeto del conocer y la cuestión metafísica: a. La \n\t\t\t\t noción de ser (realidad); b. El deseo infinito de \n\t\t\t\t conocer y de ser un auténtico conocedor.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".