Bibliographic record
Abstract
A discussão aqui proposta parte de uma crítica feita por Howard Delong, ainda na década de 70, ao existencialismo, filosofia que há muito saiu de moda. O resgate dessa crítica revela-se, no entanto, pertinente para o momento presente, porque posições filosóficas importantes e em voga na atualidade correm o risco de esvaziamento similar. Considerações epistemológicas mais gerais avançadas por Delong e outros autores com base em resultados obtidos nos âmbitos mais restritos da lógica, da matemática e da teoria da computação permanecem um antídoto válido contra tal esvaziamento. Tais considerações permitem um ultrapassar da trivialidade de posições meramente céticas e historicistas, evitando o puro e simples abandono de noções mais substanciais como verdade ou intuição. Conclui-se com a defesa de que um resgate dessas últimas noções faz-se necessário inclusive no âmbito de áreas não estritamente científicas, como a crítica literária.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".