Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of objectivity of any knowledge claim remains heavily controversial in academic circles. Science and its practitioners claim to be objective, value free and able to attain definite or certain knowledge as opposed to mere opinion/belief whereas such pretensions are contended by the postmodern disposition that insists on the impossibility of definite/certain knowledge and objectivity. Postmodern thinking favours multiculturalism, relativism and a worldview in which claims of truth are contested. How does science respond to these critical matters and what are the prospects of science in the future in the face of these hurdles? What are some of the presuppositions of science that tend to obliterate its claim to certain and objective knowledge? How defensible and justifiable are some of the challenges that post modern thinking bring forth to be confronted by any epistemological endeavour that must be taken seriously as far the issue of objectivity and certainty are concerned? These are among the queries the paper seeks to answer in view of assessing the extent to which the tenuous tension can be appreciated and resolved. The exercise hopes to achieve this using the analytical and critical tools of philosophy. Key words: Science; Objectivity; Modernism and Postmodernism
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 | 0.032 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.118 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".