Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume L'objectif principal de cet article est de clarifier le sens et l'extension du concept d'analyticite tel qu'il s'applique aux systemes formels de la logique. L'enjeu plus general de cette etude est une evaluation ekthodologique des approches philosophiques axees sur la reconstruction formelle et l'analyse logique des langues naturelles. Nous avons d'abord soutenu que la reconstruction formelle de l'analyticiteelaboree par Rudolf Carnap dans Meaning and Necessity met en place des conditions correspondant aux proprietes ektalogiques de completude deductive et de nega-completude. A la lumere des theoremes de completude et d'incomplhde de Kurt Godel, nous avons ensuite cherchea determiner dans quelle mesure et dans quelles circonstances ces proprietes pouvaient etre realisees dans des systemes formels de la logique. Nous avons conch de cette etude, premierement que la reconstruction carnapeenne de I'analyticite se butait a des contraintes inherentes aux formalismes et ne pouvait par consequent pas constituer une explication du concept d'analyticite, et deuxieemement, que fort peu de systemes formels etaient analytiques au sens ou Carnap I'entend et que peu d'entre eux, par consequent, etaient susceptibles de representer les conditions de l'analyticite que presuppose une analyse logique du langage.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".