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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Ciencia de la Lógica es, para una mayoría de intérpretes, un libro de metafísica. Aquí se sostiene que, por el contrario, ésta debe ser leída como una filosofía de la lógica. Su rasgo central es un antiformalismo que se caracteriza por las siguientes tesis: 1) el formalismo no puede explicar la validez lógica; 2) las propiedades lógicas no son reductibles a propiedades gramaticales; 3) el contenido de todo concepto se explica en términos de relaciones inferenciales a otros conceptos y 4) la validez lógica se explica en términos de la relación que un razonamiento mantiene con ciertos contenidos conceptuales (las Ideas). Esta concepción resulta de la radicalización de una idea kantiana y apunta a una teoría normativa de nuestras prácticas conceptuales, no a una ontología.<br>Hegel's Logic is usually read as a book in metaphysics. Against this reading, I will argue that it ought rather to be read as a philosophy of logic, the main feature of which is its critique of formalism. The following claims capture the core of Hegel's anti-formalism: 1) formalism cannot explain logical validity; 2) logical properties cannot be reduced to grammatical properties; 3) the content of every concept can be accounted for in terms of the inferential relations it holds with other concepts; 4) logical validity can be accounted for in terms of the relations a reasoning maintains with some conceptual contents (Ideas). This conception of logic results from a Criradicalisation of a Kantian thesis and aims at a normative theory of conceptual practices, not at an ontology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it