MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1899717414 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139208796.012

Function and teleology<sup/>

2014· book-chapter· en· W1899717414 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolutionary Biology · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEvolution and Science Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheismTeleologyMutationFunction (biology)Simple (philosophy)PhilosophyEpistemologyProbabilistic logicCreationismGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evolutionary theory, in its application to finite populations of organisms, is a probabilistic theory. To understand more precisely what is involved in the biological claim that mutations are unguided, this chapter considers a simple experiment. The experiment involves a large number of blue organisms so that one gets mutation frequencies different from zero. If the existence of guided mutations doesn't show that God exists, then the nonexistence of guided mutations doesn't show that God does not exist. Atheists and theists should agree that the biological question is separate from the theological question. The chapter suggests that Pierre Duhem's thesis provides a good model for how biological findings about mutation are related to theistic claims about divine intervention in the mutation process. Some versions of interventionist theism, like Young Earth Creationism, are logically inconsistent with evolutionary theory. The idea that God sometimes intervenes in the mutation process is different.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.191 · 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